On Thu, Aug 23, 2001 at 07:55:13AM -0700, Steven Schaefer wrote:
> I'm not at a location to access the account that receives the subscription
> mail today so please CC this account on a reply, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> I'm kind of delving over which way I should implement buffering.
> I looked through some of the source code and found in bf_buff.c
>
> #define DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE 1024
>From CHANGES:
Changes between 0.9.6a and 0.9.6b [9 Jul 2001]
...
*) In crypto/bio/bf_buff.c, increase DEFAULT_BUFFER_SIZE to 4096
(previously it was 1024).
[Bodo Moeller]
> the code appears to use this as the buffer size before calling the
> underlying routine ( SSL_write ) in my case.
>
> What is the reasoning for 1024? Or do the encryption routines like a 1024
> data segment? "openssl.cnf" configuration file has a name=value pair of
> "default_bits=1024" is there an association here? Or simply this has worked
> best in the past. If my memory serves me right doesn't each of the
> encryption algorithms dictate there own max memory size that it will encrypt
> in each message it sends over the network.
It's a compromise between memory usage and efficiency. SSL_write() can
send up to 16kB in one chunk (TLS specification).
Best regards,
Lutz
--
Lutz Jaenicke [EMAIL PROTECTED]
BTU Cottbus http://www.aet.TU-Cottbus.DE/personen/jaenicke/
Lehrstuhl Allgemeine Elektrotechnik Tel. +49 355 69-4129
Universitaetsplatz 3-4, D-03044 Cottbus Fax. +49 355 69-4153
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
