On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 16:33:29 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>I understand that the CPACF instructions are just that - single
>instructions. But so are AR, MVCL, and CFC - quite a range.
>(I'm guessing that CFC takes a long time to execute. It's
>description takes a long time t
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 15:46:59 -0600, Ernest Nachtigall
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thank you very much for joining the discussion. I'm afaid you're
going to be swamped with questions for a while.
>... Fo CPACF, is is a single OP code so beats
>software routines thousands to one (TDES ASM routine h
On Mon, 3 Dec 2007 12:58:53 -0600, Patrick O'Keefe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Is there any doc comparing performance of crypto functions using
>the encryption hardware vs the same functions using software?
>
>I've seen a paper showing the performance of both CPACF and CEX2
>based on block sizes
Is there any doc comparing performance of crypto functions using
the encryption hardware vs the same functions using software?
I've seen a paper showing the performance of both CPACF and CEX2
based on block sizes (very big differences) but not compared to
with software-only. I've also seen a z/L
4 matches
Mail list logo
