Thanks Larry. But the only difference is this part in my gateway-site.xml. *<property>* * <name>ssl.enabled</name>* * <value>false</value>* * <description>Indicates whether SSL is enabled.</description>* *</property>*
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 11:42 AM, larry mccay <lmc...@apache.org> wrote: > I really don't think that kind of difference should be expected from > merely SSL overhead. > I don't however have any metrics to contradict it either since I do not > run Knox without SSL. > > Given the above, I am struggling coming up with a meaningful response to > this. :( > I don't think you should see a 10 fold increase in speed by disabling SSL > though. > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 2:35 PM Guang Yang <k...@uber.com> wrote: > >> Any idea guys? >> >> On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:07 PM, Guang Yang <k...@uber.com> wrote: >> >>> Thanks guys! The issue seems exactly what David pointed out, which is >>> because of encrypted over SSL. >>> >>> Without Knox, the download speed can reach to *400M/s* if I call >>> Namenode directly. And with disabling SSL, the speed can reach to >>> *~400M/s* as well through Knox. But with SSL, the speed drops >>> significantly to *~40M/s*. I know it's because of encrypted, but it >>> does surprised me with such a difference. Is it normal from your >>> perspective? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Guang >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 4, 2018 at 11:07 AM, David Villarreal < >>> dvillarr...@hortonworks.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Guang, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Keep in mind the data is being encrypted over SSL. If you disable SSL >>>> you will most likely see a very significant boost in throughput. Some >>>> people have used more powerful computers to make encryption quicker. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> David >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *Sean Roberts <srobe...@hortonworks.com> >>>> *Reply-To: *"user@knox.apache.org" <user@knox.apache.org> >>>> *Date: *Tuesday, September 4, 2018 at 1:53 AM >>>> *To: *"user@knox.apache.org" <user@knox.apache.org> >>>> *Subject: *Re: WebHDFS performance issue in Knox >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Guang – This is somewhat to be expected. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When you talk to WebHDFS directly, the client can distribute the >>>> request across many data nodes. Also, you are getting data directly from >>>> the source. >>>> >>>> With Knox, all traffic goes through the single Knox host. Knox is >>>> responsible for fetching from the datanodes and consolidating to send to >>>> you. This means overhead as it’s acting as a middle man, and lower network >>>> capacity since only 1 host is serving data to you. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also, if running on a cloud provider, the Knox host may be a smaller >>>> instance size with lower network capacity. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sean Roberts >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From: *Guang Yang <k...@uber.com> >>>> *Reply-To: *"user@knox.apache.org" <user@knox.apache.org> >>>> *Date: *Tuesday, 4 September 2018 at 07:46 >>>> *To: *"user@knox.apache.org" <user@knox.apache.org> >>>> *Subject: *WebHDFS performance issue in Knox >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> We're using Knox 1.1.0 to proxy WebHDFS request. If we download a file >>>> through WebHDFS in Knox, the download speed is just about 11M/s. However, >>>> if we download directly from datanode, the speed is about 40M/s at least. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you guys aware of this problem? Any suggestion? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Guang >>>> >>> >>> >>
