On Jan 5, 2013, at 12:06 AM, Willy Tarreau <[email protected]> wrote: > Did you get a significant performance gain with padlock ? I've not had > the chance to test one yet. I don't even know if it requires an engine > or not. At least with aes-ni, it's included in the native code, you > don't need the engine (and the perf gain is impressive, we achieved > 5 Gbps of AES256 per core).
Hi Willy, thanks for that information. I get significant gains with padlock, and it does require the engine. On a VIA Nano 1.6GHz I get 600 Mbps of SSL throughput on a single connection vs. 240 Mbps without padlock (I'd probably get more as for some reason my "openssl speed" benchmark runs are slower than others I've seen online by a factor of 2x). The performance gain isn't much with many small requests, though. That's interesting about AES-NI not requiring an engine. I'll be getting a machine that supports it next week. Perhaps padlock is the only practical use for engine support. I'm not sure how many people are clamoring for it. Ian
