4 ms·
Because, why bother? The symmetric encryption itself is cheap. We have datapoints for A) 0% SSL handshake workload per connection and B) 100% SSL handshake
by mlyle 5y ago
Because, why bother? The symmetric encryption itself is cheap. We have datapoints for
A) 0% SSL handshake workload per connection
and B) 100% SSL handshake workload per connection.
A reasonable step is just to solve the linear system---
800 (s+r) = 1 48000 r = 1
and go from there for preliminary sizing. And, when you need detailed sizing, you should be using the real data from your real application.
E.g., if it's reused 6 times, we'd expect around 4400 reqs/second from one core.
- jcims 5y agoSure, for a first order approximation that works well. I still think there’s something worth exploring here relative to bare metal vs hypervisors around AES-NI passthrough and cipher suites. My reaction came from the fact that someone that doesn’t understand how much cheaper symmetric encryption is might look at this and just think wow there’s no way I’m using SSL on my back end.