[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... > OK, I'll have a look. FreeBSD seems to be faster again, > (don't compare these results to the previous mail):
[I've just noticed you used `sha1' below. Is that a shell alias or function? The program from coreutils is called sha1sum. ] > $time sha1 < 15MBfile > 51e673b839d5bee3293fa2f1dd58c69face9770a ... > $time openssl sha1 < 15MBfile > 51e673b839d5bee3293fa2f1dd58c69face9770a ... FYI, here are a few more data points: On an AMD-64 system, using a 700MB file on a tmpfs file system (and enough RAM so that no actual disk reads are performed), GNU md5sum is slightly faster than `openssl md5', e.g.: 2.38s user 0.38s system 100% cpu 2.756 total (gnu md5sum) vs. 2.52s user 0.34s system 100% cpu 2.869 total However, `openssl sha1' is about 5% faster than GNU sha1sum: 3.32s user 0.33s system 99% cpu 3.653 total (openssl sha1) 3.45s user 0.39s system 99% cpu 3.843 total (gnu sha1sum) The above are using the debian-sid (amd_64 alioth) binaries from coreutils-5.2.1. When I compile the latest (coreutils-cvs) with gcc-4.0 -O3, I get slightly (2-3%) better sha1sum performance, and a ~7% *decrease* in performance for md5sum. I suspect that with the right compiler options you can do much better. _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list Bug-coreutils@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils