On 2013-08-26 17:24, Brian Smith wrote:
Conversely, it isn't clear that AES-256 offers any significant security
advantage over AES-128, though it is clearly slower, even on my
AES-NI-equipped Core i7 processor. First, AES-128 has held up pretty well
so that it might just be good enough in
Julien,
On 9/12/2013 07:06, Julien Vehent wrote:
If performance was the only reason to prefer AES-128, I would disagree
with the proposal. But your other arguments regarding AES-256 not
provided additional security, are convincing.
The performance is still an issue for servers. More servers
On 2013-09-12 22:01, Julien Pierre wrote:
Julien,
On 9/12/2013 07:06, Julien Vehent wrote:
If performance was the only reason to prefer AES-128, I would disagree
with the proposal. But your other arguments regarding AES-256 not provided
additional security, are convincing.
The performance
How about mobile?
What about the initial key exchange that SSL/TLS does? I thought that was the
biggest CPU killer?
S.
- Original Message -
From: Julien Vehent jul...@linuxwall.info
To: Julien Pierre julien.pie...@oracle.com
Cc: mozilla's crypto code discussion list
Julien,
On 9/12/2013 19:35, Julien Vehent wrote:
aes-256-cbc with AES-NI does 543763.11kB/s. That's 4.35Gbps of AES
bandwidth on a single core.
On a decent 8 core load balancer, dedicate 4 to TLS, and you get
17.40Gbps of AES bandwidth.
I don't this AES is close to being the limiting factor
5 matches
Mail list logo
