On 05/23/2011 08:12:13 AM, Gordan Bobic wrote:
2) My testing shows that the coreutils software implementation is
actually quicker on checksumming large files. Not a lot, mind you, but
the difference is measurable (1.924s for sha1sum and 1.998s for
sha1 for a kernel tar.bz2 ball, for the best of three runs of each).
the sys+user time for sha1sum adds up to the wallclock total, whereas
for the cryptodev accelerated openssl run, the sys+user is 0.620s,
less than a third of wallclock.
cryptodev probably used the CESA hardware. since it isnt using cpu time
i guess its technically not a bug.
i wonder how much you could actually use the cpu for other things?
would a little cpu bound program running at idle prio get work done
during your benchmark? that might be a big argument for cryptodev...
or even run both openssl and coreutils in parallel; total bytes
per second (and heat and power) should increase.