On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 07/02/17 20:30, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> Version 1.2.10 includes the following change:
>>
>> - Update minimum recommended OpenSSL version to 1.0.2k
>> - Windows binaries built with OpenSSL 1.0.2k
>> - Better documentation
On Tue, Feb 7, 2017 at 3:30 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> Version 1.2.10 includes the following change:
>
> - Update minimum recommended OpenSSL version to 1.0.2k
> - Windows binaries built with OpenSSL 1.0.2k
> - Better documentation for building on Windows
> (including with FIPS
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/02/17 22:55, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/17 21:20, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> If there is anything I can do to help work on the patch I will,
>>> however as I mentioned in the bug I don't
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/02/17 22:55, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>
>> On 06/02/17 21:20, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark,
>>>
>>> If there is anything I can do to help work on the patch I will,
>>> however as I mentioned in the bug I don't
Mark,
If there is anything I can do to help work on the patch I will,
however as I mentioned in the bug I don't have a windows environment
so I am basically useless if that is where the issues exist.
-nate
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 4:03 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 06/02/17
On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Am 28.06.2016 um 16:07 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>
>> On 28/06/2016 12:28, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>>
>>> On 28/06/2016 11:34, Rainer Jung wrote:
Am 28.06.2016 um 11:15 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 12:04 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
>> Great analysis. I was really wondering, what could make the hash map so huge
>> and hadn't thought about the hash function as the problem.
>>
>>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Rainer Jung wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
>
> Am 27.06.2016 um 15:11 schrieb Mark Thomas:
>>
>> I believe I have an explanation for what is going on that fits both the
>> reported behaviour and the proposed fix.
>>
>> Background
>> ==
>>
>>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 21:52, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> I'm wondering if this is a problem that builds up over time. If I
>>> understood your previous posts correctly, running the big tests
>>> immediately gave ~700MB/s
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 4:52 PM, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 20:01, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 24/06/2016 18:41,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:21 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 20:01, therealnewo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>>> On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 2:07 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 18:41, Nate Clark wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:37 PM, Nate Clark wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Mark Thomas wrote:
On 24/06/2016 18:25, Mark Thomas
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
>>
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:37 AM, wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
>> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>>
Thanks.
I'm going to start
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 24/06/2016 11:17, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
>> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>>> similar results and,
On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 6:17 AM, Rémy Maucherat wrote:
> 2016-06-24 12:08 GMT+02:00 Mark Thomas :
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I'm going to start some local performance testing to confirm I see
>> similar results and, assuming I do, I'll start looking at fixing this
>>
17 matches
Mail list logo