On Sun, 26 May 2002, Ben Laurie wrote:
> > What about a --with-devrandom= option for people who do want to go
> > the /dev/urandom route?
I'm starting to prefer this option I think.
> Surely its configurable anyway? Changing the default strikes me as
> something that will bite you if you aren't
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2002, Ben Laurie wrote:
3) open /dev/random in non-blocking mode and defer EAGAIN reads
until later (read it at startup; if it would block, try again when
the entropy is actually needed, failing if it isn't ready by then
-- no idea if this would even work).
+---+
| Bugzilla Bug ID |
| +-+
| | Status: UNC=Unconfirmed NEW=New ASS=Assigned
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Sun, 26 May 2002, Ben Laurie wrote:
3) open /dev/random in non-blocking mode and defer EAGAIN reads
until later (read it at startup; if it would block, try again when
the entropy is actually needed, failing if it isn't ready by then
-- no idea if this would even work).
On Sun, 26 May 2002, Ben Laurie wrote:
> >>3) open /dev/random in non-blocking mode and defer EAGAIN reads
> >> until later (read it at startup; if it would block, try again when
> >> the entropy is actually needed, failing if it isn't ready by then
> >> -- no idea if this would even work)
Cliff Woolley wrote:
On Wed, 22 May 2002, Aaron Bannert wrote:
On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 08:24:04PM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
IIRC, /dev/random is a "better" source of entropy than /dev/urandom
because /dev/random can block waiting for good enough bits gathered
from the system while /dev/urand
> From: Brian Pane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 26 May 2002 02:03
> On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 13:08, Brian Pane wrote:
>> I'll run httpd benchmarks using this patch and the current pool code.
>> If all goes well, I'll post results later today.
>
> Good news:
>
> The benchmark tests are finished
