We're talking about CMS SSL, not Linux SSL.
On 11/12/2014 11:42 AM, Ambros, Thomas wrote: > Does it make any sense not to implement a pool of SSL servers on z/VM (6.3)? Depends on your CMS based SSL workload. I find the complexity burdensome and wondered at first ... "why??". But if there is only a single server doing your SSL work, it can become a bottleneck. So a pool starts to make sense. In Velocity's SSL product, the SSL work is spread across all web servers. No single server bottleneck. > Are the numerous Linux guests, some multiple of the concurrent session > capacity of a single SSL server, going to be clients of the z/VM SSL servers > if they require the function or are they implementing their own cases, or is > it another 'it depends' situation? Linux SSL is handled wholly within Linux. Well ... guests *can* use hardware facilities, but that's different. Linux will not use VM SSL. > Is there any good reason *not* to implement a pool? Think really hard about your future SSL workload. I sympathize with your pain on the configuration tedium. But if there is any chance you'll need to spread the overhead, get ready for multiples. What Alan said: a "pool" of just one sets you up for growth. -- Rick Troth Senior Software Developer Velocity Software Inc. Mountain View, CA 94041 Main: (877) 964-8867 Direct: (614) 594-9768 [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For LINUX-390 subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO LINUX-390 or visit http://www.marist.edu/htbin/wlvindex?LINUX-390 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For more information on Linux on System z, visit http://wiki.linuxvm.org/
