On 5 September 2011 20:35, Pierre Schmitz <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 5 Sep 2011 13:55:38 +0200, Cédric Girard wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, Sep 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Ray Rashif <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> it slows down my inherently slow >>> connection (think GPRS/EDGE/2G) >>> >> >> Do you have any figures to support this? I would be interested to see what >> the impact of HTTPS on the client side is. > > Me too. We'd need some numbers to back this argument. I also wonder how > many are really affected by having such a slow connection that this > would actually matter. I wouldn't be surprised if this number is really > low.
It just feels slower. I think the amount of data transferred does not look that much bigger when you have at least a 512Kbps, but browsing is indeed slower. Take, for eg., GMail for Mobile on my phone has HTTPS disabled, and when enabling it warns that "more data will be used". A 128Kbps unstable connection eg. over the GSM network will struggle with an SSL-encrypted website far away from the user's ISP/region due to the inevitable added latency of that kind of network. However, you are right, there is no empirical evidence until I log my connection to one of the Arch Linux sites with and without SSL. I will try and do this soon. In the meantime, these are Google results that you might've already come across: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/150031 http://stackoverflow.com/questions/548029/how-much-overhead-does-ssl-impose http://serverfault.com/questions/43692/how-much-of-a-performance-hit-for-https-vs-http-for-apache -- GPG/PGP ID: 8AADBB10
