* Christer Solskogen [2011-10-18 21:47]:
> Random is pretty fast on OpenBSD then. I have a 2010 Macbook Pro with
> OSX (Lion) which does about 13MB/s. An a much older machine (with a
> much slower cpu) with OpenBSD which does 65MB/s.
stop spreading lies, everybody knows openbsd is slow!
--
Hen
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 01:47:59PM -0700, James Hozier wrote:
> I'm doing dd
> if=/dev/random of=/dev/wd0c
Never use the block device for anything other than mounting.
Also, specify a block size. Something like
dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/rwd0c bs=64k
The r is really important. Play with the bl
On 10/18/11 16:47, James Hozier wrote:
> I'm doing dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/wd0c
and your bottleneck was anything but uh...(/dev/)random. :)
Doing it that way, you can't even push zeros out rapidly.
Add a block size flag. Long ago, someone who should know assured me (or
maybe the mail list?)
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 11:12 AM, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>> >> In any case, I'm
>> >> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a
rather
>> >> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
>> >
>> > I am getting 9MB/sec
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 3:55 PM, James Hozier wrote:
>> From: Paul D. Ouderkirk
>> Subject: Re: /dev/srandom vs.
> /dev/arandom
>> To: "Theo de Raadt"
>> Cc: "James
> Hozier" , misc@openbsd.org
>> Date: Tuesday, October 18,
> 2011, 5:
> From: Paul D. Ouderkirk
> Subject: Re: /dev/srandom vs.
/dev/arandom
> To: "Theo de Raadt"
> Cc: "James
Hozier" , misc@openbsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 18,
2011, 5:41 PM
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM,
> Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >>
> From: Paul D. Ouderkirk
> Subject: Re: /dev/srandom vs.
/dev/arandom
> To: "Theo de Raadt"
> Cc: "James
Hozier" , misc@openbsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 18,
2011, 5:41 PM
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM,
> Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >>
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 15:46, Christer Solskogen <
christer.solsko...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt <
> dera...@cvs.openbsd.org>
> wrote:
> >> >> In any case, I'm
> >> >> getting just under 600KB/s
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:12 PM, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt
wrote:
>> >> In any case, I'm
>> >> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a
rather
>> >> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
>> >
>> > I am getting 9MB/sec o
2011/10/18 vovka :
> I am getting on average a weighted speed of approximately 80MB/sec
I got 116MB/sec on a HP DL360 G7 Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5335 @ 2.00GHz,
2000.37 MHz with 4.9 amd64 if that's interesting for someone for some
kind of reference.
-- Johan
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 14:12, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> > >> In any case, I'm
> > >> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a
> rather
> > >> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
> > >
> > > I am getting 9
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt
> wrote:
> >> In any case, I'm
> >> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a rather
> >> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
> >
> > I am getting 9MB/sec on a zaurus (416 MHz xscale arm).
>
> Just so everyone is
On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
>> In any case, I'm
>> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a rather
>> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
>
> I am getting 9MB/sec on a zaurus (416 MHz xscale arm).
Just so everyone is on the same page, h
> In any case, I'm
> getting just under 600KB/s on average with /dev/random. This is on a rather
> old machine, so I guess it's not too bad.
I am getting 9MB/sec on a zaurus (416 MHz xscale arm).
If my math is right, you would see 600KB/sec on a 10 MHz Xeon.
Yes, I said MHz.
> From: Theo de Raadt
> Subject: Re: /dev/srandom
vs. /dev/arandom
> To: "James Hozier"
> Cc:
misc@openbsd.org
> Date: Tuesday, October 18, 2011, 12:53 AM
> > I heard that
since 4.9, there
> has been some changes to the
> > /dev/randoms in OpenBSD.
I&#x
On 2011-10-18, James Hozier wrote:
> I heard that since 4.9, there has been some changes to the
> /dev/randoms in OpenBSD. I'm unsure of what the changes exactly
> are, but for confidentiality in terms of entire hard drives (talking
> terabytes of SATAII hard drives), would /dev/srandom still be t
> I heard that since 4.9, there has been some changes to the
> /dev/randoms in OpenBSD. I'm unsure of what the changes exactly are,
> but for confidentiality in terms of entire hard drives (talking
> terabytes of SATAII hard drives), would /dev/srandom still be the best
> suitable for this task?
T
I heard that since 4.9, there has been some changes to the /dev/randoms in
OpenBSD. I'm unsure of what the changes exactly are, but for confidentiality in
terms of entire hard drives (talking terabytes of SATAII hard drives), would
/dev/srandom still be the best suitable for this task? Last I re
18 matches
Mail list logo
