the hardware vendors claim speeds of 300-2000 RSA operations
per second. One would like to think that, with that sort of
hardware, one can productively offload even an 800 MHZ CPU.
At 07:59 AM 1/19/01 -0800, David Lang wrote:
>when I was evaluating similar products a couple years ago I found that it
>really didn't help to try and worry about spilling the load over to the
>main CPU.
>
>benchmarks from the time were
>
>pentium 200 linux 19 connections/sec 100% CPU
>RS/6000 233 (RISC) 29 connections/sec 100% CPU
>install SSL accelerator 300 connections/sec 10-20% CPU
>
>nowdays the raw machines will be faster, but you also need to have CPU
>time to run CGIs etc. I think it's unlikly that you will gain much by
>useing your main CPUs (assuming you get an appropriatly sized SSL
>accelerator
>
>David Lang
>
>
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 12:47:02 -0000
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: RE: Rainbow Cryptoswift cards
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Louis LeBlanc [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: 19 January 2001 12:39
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Re: Rainbow Cryptoswift cards
> > >
> > >
> > > One quick question, just so I know how to answer when this kind of
> > > project comes up:
> > > The cryptoswift card provides 'onboard' acceleration of SSL based
> > > processing, but the card itself can only handle so many
> > > transactions per
> > > second. What happens if your traffic load exceeds the cards ability?
> > > can you easily 'spill' that extra work over to the system if you have
> > > any room there?
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
