> From: Geoff Thorpe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Saturday, September 08, 2001 11:30 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: SSLSessionCacheTimeout
> Hi there,
> On Fri, 7 Sep 2001, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote:
>> Geoff,
>> Thanks for the detailed explaination - it does make a lot of sense..
>> As you've pointed out in case of SHMHT, if a server is lightly loaded,
the
>> session id will be cached for a time greater than the expiry time - but
a
>> session is NOT resumed based on this session-id. So, I guess it's still
>> okay. I also fully understand your views of shmcb and dbm methods of
>> caching.
>I'm not sure you got the seriousness of the shmht situation. The problem is
>not light loads, it's high loads. There is a global (although I assume
I've done comparitive tests of the dbm, shmht, and shmcb caches on Apache
servers using out cryptographic accelerator cards, under load, on Solaris,
HP UX, AIX, and Linux, and the shmcb cache was by far the performance
winner, and particularly so if the high load lasted for any significant
time.
Lynn Gazis
Rainbow Technologies
______________________________________________________________________
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
