Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:37:32 +0200 (CEST)
From:      Oliver Fromme <olli@lurza.secnetix.de>
To:        freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG, ohmer@epita.info
Subject:   Re: VIA C7 support
Message-ID:  <200610121537.k9CFbWpw069896@lurza.secnetix.de>
In-Reply-To: <1160664469.92207.51.camel@moe.cload.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthieu Michaud wrote:
 > I rent a small server based on a VIA C7 on which I installed a
 > 6.2-PRERELEASE as of today (see dmesg and kernconf attached). It runs
 > fairly well but I wonder if it couldn't be faster.
 > 
 > According to padlock(4) man page, crypto hardware support is available
 > by adding padlock, crypto and cryptodev kernel options. I compiled it as
 > modules. I haven't noticed difference between 'openssl speed' and
 > 'openssl speed -engine padlock'. I attached results.

I don't know if the openssl command really uses the padlock
engine.  I doubt it.

But with scp the throughput doubles when padlock is enabled
on my C3 Nehemiah.  So it clearly helps scp.  (FAST_IPSEC
also benefits from it, but I don't use IPSEC so I don't
have numbers.)

 > Finally, I tried to read 16M from /dev/random and /dev/urandom to look
 > at RNG support. It reads at 2M/s on both device. Comparing to a P4 1.7G
 > and P4 2.8G, it's few : they both performs around 14M/s on almost as
 > recent kernel.

There's a difference in quality:  I doubt that those 16MB
that you got in about one second on the P4 were really
as random as the 2 MB that you got on the C7.

Also take into account that you usually don't read that
much data from /dev/random.  Quality is much more important
than speed.

Best regards
   Oliver

-- 
Oliver Fromme,  secnetix GmbH & Co. KG, Marktplatz 29, 85567 Grafing
Dienstleistungen mit Schwerpunkt FreeBSD: http://www.secnetix.de/bsd
Any opinions expressed in this message may be personal to the author
and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of secnetix in any way.

"It combines all the worst aspects of C and Lisp:  a billion different
sublanguages in one monolithic executable.  It combines the power of C
with the readability of PostScript."
        -- Jamie Zawinski, when asked: "What's wrong with perl?"



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200610121537.k9CFbWpw069896>