More nginx/stunnel ssl testing(nginx.org)
nginx.org
More nginx/stunnel ssl testing
http://nginx.org/pipermail/nginx/2011-July/027960.html
2 comments
Completely agree.
When deploying Rackspace Cloud Files (Openstack swift), we tested several SSL-terminating load balancers (throughput, not connection/sec), and we found the best performance with Zeus. Pound was the best in our tests for open source.
When deploying Rackspace Cloud Files (Openstack swift), we tested several SSL-terminating load balancers (throughput, not connection/sec), and we found the best performance with Zeus. Pound was the best in our tests for open source.
A few years back, I tested cyassl http://1nw.eu/!f8 for RSA computation (a friend of mine had patched it to remove a lot of malloc and optimize the code, something he couldn't do on openssl). It had interesting results compared to OpenSSL, but I haven't tried to use it with a real daemon.
Does anybody know if it would compile with nginx/stunnel/stud ? Results would be interesting.
Does anybody know if it would compile with nginx/stunnel/stud ? Results would be interesting.
I can't agree more :)
To some extend I agree - but if it wasn't for this benchmark AND the follow-up, my SSL cipher list would definitively not be the first (or second, or third) item I'd check in case of mysterious web server slowness ... Now it is.
I've learned something from this and thus find it useful.
I've learned something from this and thus find it useful.
[deleted]
If that's the case ... then it's a real problem.
The mainstream argument lately has been that SSL is so minimally computationally intensive that it doesn't hurt to just use it by default for all of your traffic. If piping your traffic through SSL is so computationally intensive that it dominates your entire cross-webserver benchmark ... then the mainstream argument can't possibly be true.
The mainstream argument lately has been that SSL is so minimally computationally intensive that it doesn't hurt to just use it by default for all of your traffic. If piping your traffic through SSL is so computationally intensive that it dominates your entire cross-webserver benchmark ... then the mainstream argument can't possibly be true.
SSL is so minimally computationally intensive that it doesn't hurt to just use it by default for all of your traffic
May I ask where you got that from ?
SSL, or to be more accurate RSA, IS computationally intensive, but mostly at the establishment of the session (you cannot do millions of multiplications on a consumer grade CPU without expecting some delay and heat).
Once the connection is established, and can be reused/resumed, it's relatively cheap.
May I ask where you got that from ?
SSL, or to be more accurate RSA, IS computationally intensive, but mostly at the establishment of the session (you cannot do millions of multiplications on a consumer grade CPU without expecting some delay and heat).
Once the connection is established, and can be reused/resumed, it's relatively cheap.
Real SSL clients are supposed to use SSL session resumption. Benchmarking with a client that only negotiates new sessions hardly reflects real-life usage.
tl;dr -- we can probably all stop doing these benchmarks since we're largely benchmarking the same thing.