Subject: Re: openssl (or gcc) performance changes?
To: William Allen Simpson <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 10/02/2003 14:01:21
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:38:28PM -0400, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Richard Earnshaw wrote:
> > A load average of 1.00 means that on average (over the relevant time
> > interval) 1 job was always runnable. Hence a load average of 4 means that
> > on average 4 jobs were runnable all the time.
> Thanks, then that's not what I remembered it meant.... Oh, well, any
> other ideas how to find out why this is taking so long? This run (with
> identical data) took 16 hours on 1.6U and is over 58 hours on 1.6ZC.
But you're not using the same OpenSSL library -- it would be every bit as
valid to say "took 16 hours with OpenSSL 0.9.6 and is over 58 hours
with OpenSSL 0.9.7", if I read your previous message correctly. Or do I
Unless this does _not_ happen on other platforms with the exact same two
OpenSSL versions, I'd say you need to take it up with the OpenSSL folks.
Either way, the right place to start is probably by profiling the
executable, being sure to profile the OpenSSL library as well.
Thor Lancelot Simon email@example.com
But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common
objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You
plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud