Author: Paul Stimpson Date: To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List Subject: Re: [Hampshire] Ubuntu LVM LUKS
Hi,
Antony wrote: >> From: "Paul Stimpson"
>> That's what I was thinking too but the machine is a dual core 2.4 and the
>> 2 cores are alternating between 43% and 57% (one on each then swapping).
>> I assume that random generation is a compute-bound activity so if that
>> was the bottleneck I would have expected near on 100% both sides.
>>
> ...
>
>> Don't know why this thing is so slow.
>>
>
> It's a bit academic but I wonder if the urandom algorithm is being split
> into _dependent_ parts (43+57=100%) ? A bug list somewhere might like
> to know....
>
> Anthony
>
>
It could be but the load average is about 0.8 (on a dual core machine)
so I though that meant that the each core was a only running at about
40% and there were no jobs queued to run. If the machine was compute
bogged-down I would have imagined the load average would have been over
2 (both cores fully used and jobs waiting to be done) or have I
misunderstood?
