Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos writes:
> Hmm even after --enable-fat was given to gmp not much has changed.
>
> My CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8650U CPU @ 1.90GHz and that's what I
> see:
>
> 1. gmp without --enable-fat
> rsa 20480.8881 27.1422
>
> 2. gmp with --enable-fat
>
On Tue, 2019-12-03 at 08:59 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:47 PM Niels Möller
> wrote:
> > > name size sign/ms verify/ms
> > > rsa 20480.8881 27.1422
> > >rsa (openssl) 20481.4249 45.2295
> > >
> > > rsa-tr
On Mon, Dec 2, 2019 at 9:47 PM Niels Möller wrote:
> > name size sign/ms verify/ms
> > rsa 20480.8881 27.1422
> >rsa (openssl) 20481.4249 45.2295
> >
> > rsa-tr 20480.4257 29.1152
> > rsa-tr (openssl) 20481.3735 46.1692
>
> The
Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos writes:
> I got pinged by someone testing the performance of TLS handshakes and
> it seems that gnutls/nettle with RSA is significantly slower than
> openssl.
To quote the NEWS file for Nettle-3.4.1:
Performance regression:
* All RSA private key operations
On Mon, 2019-12-02 at 13:24 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Hi,
> I got pinged by someone testing the performance of TLS handshakes and
> it seems that gnutls/nettle with RSA is significantly slower than
> openssl. On the other hand, secp256r1 and ed25519 are faster. (btw.
> both openssl
Hi,
I got pinged by someone testing the performance of TLS handshakes and
it seems that gnutls/nettle with RSA is significantly slower than
openssl. On the other hand, secp256r1 and ed25519 are faster. (btw.
both openssl and gnutls/nettle are slower than rusttls). Nevertheless
the RSA caught my
