Very thanks for Julien Pierre answer. I use webload 6.0 to do full SSL handshakes,SSL session can't reuse,and key size=1024bit. Could you offer us the name of SSL hardware accelerator cards which are often used(test in nss)?
"Julien Pierre" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ???? news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Liu, > > liupeng wrote: > > Hi, > > Does someone can provide NSS performance report? > > I use nss-3.9 to build my ssl server,and use webload 6.0 test my > > server,the machine information as following: > > server machine: > > Turbolinux 2.4.18 SMP > > System configuration: > > 2 Xeon 2.4G 512kb cache > > 2G memory > > > > client machine:win2000*4 > > > > The performance of my server seems not good,when loadsize=50,only about 160 > > transaction per second,and cpu idle=0,can someone provide nss performance > > report or explain this? > > > > Thanks > > > > LiuPeng > > > > > > > > I have done a lot of performance work on NSS for AOL & Sun over the > years, but none of the results are public. > > That said, there are some factors I can discuss with you that you > haven't mentioned and are very important parameters. > > 1) Are you doing full SSL handshakes with RSA every time ? Or SSL > session reuse ? > > 2) If full handshake, with what key size ? 1024 bits or 2048 bits ? > > RSA is still a very expensive computation, even for modern CPUs. It > represents over 95% of the CPU cycles that NSS spends in SSL full > handshakes. If you are doing full RSA, even at 1024 bits, then 160 ops/s > seems a good number to get for the kind of server hardware you have. > > To get quite a bit more than that, you would have to buy something with > more processors, with SSL hardware accelerator cards, or more likely > with both. > > Note that NSS has been optimized for multithreading and multiple CPUs . > Most of the server-side performance work on NSS has focused on Sun > Ultrasparc CPU, not on the x86 architecture. > > Also, note that the Linux 2.4 and prior kernel is not very as good at > multithreading and SMP as, say, Solaris is. I expect 2.6 to be better > but I haven't had a chance to verify that. > > PS. I do work for Sun, so I have a visible bias, but I must tell you > that I make those statements about x86 and Linux vs Sparc & Solaris > because those are the facts I observed in my tests. _______________________________________________ mozilla-crypto mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto
