On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:34:22 +0400 Dmitry-T <dmitr...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> 11.10.10, 15:13, "Claudio Jeker" <cje...@diehard.n-r-g.com>: > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:16:19PM +0200, Martin Pelikan wrote: > > > 2010/10/11, Claudio Jeker : > > > > CPU consumed by the kernel is not accounted by the scheduler. All the > > > > work done by urandom is system time. > > > > > > And for the curious people who can't see the obvious: why is that? > > > > > > > Because that's the way Unix and in particular BSD and its scheduler were > > built. The kernel is assumed to be efficent and never doing lot of > > computation. With the addition of crypto in the kernel this may no longer > > be true but it does not affect normal operation. In other words nobody > > ever bothered to fix this. > > In FreeBSD and Mac OS X run "dd if=/dev/urandom of=/dev/null" > not change read speed from disk... > Is in OpenBSD lacks developers? > > -- > Dmitry Telegin > You need to think hard about your test and it's criteria. Often universities skew results to get funding, but you have no excuse. It may be that the macosx and freebsd kernel gave more of a reason to change this because their kernel is bloated and something hit them in the face. I guess you haven't tried it on a proper install yet, either but it would mean nothing anyway, unless you can crash the system as a normal user. All projects lack quality developers and OpenBSD needs quality!! developers more than most projects. Are there any problems caused by not having enough developers. As far as I can tell No and I would think it would be far more likely that too many developers of lesser quality would cause problems.
