3 ms·
I'm not sure why you'd try defending such behavior other than you spent as little time reading the original email as the person who responded in the thread. Th
by tw04 7y ago
I'm not sure why you'd try defending such behavior other than you spent as little time reading the original email as the person who responded in the thread. They clearly state at the bottom their in-memory results - while they don't give EXACT hardware, it's more than enough to determine there is a major bottleneck in the encryption engine. To claim "encryption is heavy" is also a poor response - either the poster has no concept of the overhead of encryption with CPU offload or was just too lazy to put together a helpful response. Either way - no response would've been better than that.
- megous 7y agoSo who do you get from 4.5GiB/s no encryption vs 850MiB/s with encryption with no other information to understanding whether there's a bottleneck in some unspecified encryption engine (with unknown throughtput and setup latency)?
- tw04 7y agoI dunno, if one of my coworkers had put in the work that OP did, showed me the results, and asked my thoughts: if I didn't have enough information I'd ask for more. If you're telling me you don't have enough information to assume some basics about the setup (I'd look at that and assume it was a modern Intel or AMD CPU just based on the throughput) - then how does he have enough information to dismiss the findings as "then this is from lack of understanding on your side." You can't have your cake and eat it too.
- megous 7y agoMakes sense.