Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 15:07:30 +0300 From: "Andrey A. Chernov" <ache@nagual.pp.ru> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: rand() is broken Message-ID: <20030204120730.GA91888@nagual.pp.ru> In-Reply-To: <20030204115237.GA6483@HAL9000.homeunix.com> References: <20030202070644.GA9987@rot13.obsecurity.org> <20030202090422.GA59750@nagual.pp.ru> <20030203002639.GB44914@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030203100002.GA73386@nagual.pp.ru> <20030204054020.GA2447@HAL9000.homeunix.com> <20030204094659.GA87303@nagual.pp.ru> <20030204115237.GA6483@HAL9000.homeunix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 04, 2003 at 03:52:37 -0800, David Schultz wrote: > > You can do better than the present generator with 32 bits of state. > See the following page by Neal Wagner (not to be confused with David Wagner): > http://www.cs.utsa.edu/~wagner/laws/rng.html > The section on LCGs suggests that the multiplier FreeBSD uses (7^5) > is not particularly good, and points out some better values suggested > by Knuth. I can't find the original discussion in TAOCP vol. 2, but Thank for your pointer, I'll look at later. > Well, if 0 doesn't work, and 10 doesn't work, and 100 doesn't > work, then I'm not too hopeful about 2000. I appeal to Asimov's > zero, one, infinity law. I found that f.e. 50 is worse than 100, but 200 isn't better. 100 is better than 0 because remove monotonically increased sequence. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030204120730.GA91888>