[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl
From: |
Simon Josefsson |
Subject: |
Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl |
Date: |
Wed, 12 Mar 2008 11:33:59 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.110007 (No Gnus v0.7) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Simon Josefsson <address@hidden> writes:
> I've added 3DES comparisons to:
>
> http://trac.gnutls.org/cgi-bin/trac.cgi/wiki/BenchmarkingModGnuTLSResults
>
> 3DES mod_ssl small file: 310.78 trans/sec
> 3DES mod_gnutls small file: 154.77 trans/sec
>
> 3DES mod_ssl large file: 7.25 trans/sec
> 3DES mod_gnutls large file: 5.75 trans/sec
>
> Rather consistent with earlier ia32 results. It is clear that 3DES is
> quite slow on large data sizes. AES-128 results:
>
> AES mod_ssl large file: 28.11 trans/sec
> AES mod_gnutls large file: 15.25 trans/sec
>
> For some reason I didn't get the DHE-DSS tests to work. Perhaps I need
> a DSA certificate.
Indeed, and I've updated the wiki pages with DSS testing information.
The results are consistent with gnutls having 50%-75% of openssl's
performance on ia32. For TLS_DHE_DSS_WITH_RSA_128_CBC_SHA (0x0032):
mod_ssl small file: 47.76 trans/sec
mod_gnutls small file: 34.13 trans/sec
mod_ssl large file: 18.87 trans/sec
mod_gnutls large file: 11.60 trans/sec
However I just realized something important: OpenSSL in Debian have
CPU-specific optimizations. Strace'ing apache indicates that it opens
libssl from /usr/lib/i686/ instead of /usr/lib/. Libgcrypt is compiled
for i486 if I understand correctly. That's not a fair comparison, so I
expect gnutls performance to be higher.
/Simon
- Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl, (continued)
Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos, 2008/03/08
Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl, Werner Koch, 2008/03/12
Re: benchmarking mod_gnutls vs mod_ssl, Werner Koch, 2008/03/13