I wish I could use OpenSource solution. But my company refused so I had to follow their requirements (actually, the requirement was to use this specific software :D)
and yes, our oldies do their job on SSL :) (If it works, don't fix it!!!) On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 5:05 PM, John Marrett <jmarr...@mediagrif.com> wrote: > Bedis, > > At that kind of connection volume (I assume that your 20k/s includes a > certain quantity of keepalive, but a large volume of new connections as > well) I'm not that surprised that you needed dedicated hardware. That > said, I wouldn't expect the load to necessarily be that bad. I have > little experience at this level of transactional volume. > > If you have doubts about your application you could test using an open > source web server and see what kind of performance you're able to obtain > on the SSL component on the same hardware. > > We handle SSL using an open source web server that acts as a reverse > proxy sending the underlying http requests to haproxy which does the > actual load balancing. Seperating the two in this way might let you > avoid licensing costs, though it's probably unnecessary if the Nortel > box is holding up well for you. > >> Note: the software is not Varnish ;) > > Even if you pay for varnish support I doubt it's per node :) > > -JohnF > >
