David Lang wrote:
>
> when I was evaluating similar products a couple years ago I found that it
> really didn't help to try and worry about spilling the load over to the
> main CPU.
>
> benchmarks from the time were
>
> pentium 200 linux 19 connections/sec 100% CPU
> RS/6000 233 (RISC) 29 connections/sec 100% CPU
> install SSL accelerator 300 connections/sec 10-20% CPU
>
> nowdays the raw machines will be faster, but you also need to have CPU
> time to run CGIs etc. I think it's unlikly that you will gain much by
> useing your main CPUs (assuming you get an appropriatly sized SSL
> accelerator
We will be aiming toward a dual 880-1000Mhz system with a Gig of Ram,
and using a Gigabit fiber ethernet interface.
No CGI will be supported (not in the business model, we just serve
cacheable content as FAST as possible). The only other overhead will be
static backend database connections (possibly > 100) and a few (<5)
other network connections.
I don't think one card is going to peg those CPUs. Right now, a 440Mhz
machine with 512MB of Ram is able to maintain 500+ objects
served/second. The new systems will (presumably, barring any unforseen
bottlenecks) be able to maintain over 1800 objects/second.
We are guessing (meaning we based these numbers on 'similar but scaled'
environment performance numbers), that we will need to maintain at least
600 real world new connections per second. My experience suggests that
this means 2 or 3 cards that claim a 600cps ability. If these cards
cost more than the system they are intended to sit on, we could just buy
more of those systems (maybe even 1/card) and possibly get a better
cost/performance benefit.
Lots to think about.
Regards
Lou
--
Louis LeBlanc
Fully Funded Hobbyist, KeySlapper Extrordinaire :)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://acadia.ne.mediaone.net
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
