Hi , I have installed openssl from scratch and there I am not observing any degradation. But I built it with in my project, there I observe the degradation. The Configure file remains same , but still in my project I can see a difference that "dynamic-engine" is present in enabled feature list.
But In Configure file its present in disabled list. So, Could anyone suggest how this can be disabled ? And I want to build the openssl outside my project) with dynamic-engine enabled. What Configure argument shall i pass or make changes in Configure file to achive that ? Thanks and Regards, Ram Krushna On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:46 AM ramakrushna mishra <rama.krush...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi , > > The results on a AIX machine looks more bad If I am interpreting them > correctly. > > openssl 1.1.0e : > The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. > type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 > bytes 16384 bytes > sha1 65019.16k 151552.49k 266107.41k 337113.93k > 360792.93k 364102.89k > > > openssl 1.1.1 : > The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. > type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 > bytes 16384 bytes > sha1 10641.28k 21433.09k 38464.85k 48496.92k > 49381.38k 51755.48k > > could any one please confirm if my interpretation is correct ? > I doubt any issue with openssl 1.1.1 version with such wider user base. > How to debug this further ? > > Thanks and Regards, > Ram Krushna > > > On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:59 AM ramakrushna mishra < > rama.krush...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Could anyone please help me wth it. >> >> Following are sslc speed results for SHA1. >> >> sslc speed sha1 >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 16858430 sha1's in 2.98s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 14147528 sha1's in 3.00s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 6436755 sha1's in 2.99s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 2055335 sha1's in 3.00s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 266404 sha1's in 2.99s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 152376 sha1's in 3.00s >> OpenSSL 1.1.0e 16 Feb 2017 >> built on: reproducible build, date unspecified >> options:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(int) aes(partial) idea(int) >> blowfish(ptr) >> compiler: gcc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS >> -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 >> -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m >> -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM >> -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPADLOCK_ASM >> -DOPENSSLDIR="\"/vobs_prgs/tools/linuxx86_64/openssl/install\"" >> -DENGINESDIR="\"/vobs_prgs/tools/linuxx86_64/openssl/install/lib/engines-1.1\"" >> The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. >> type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 >> bytes 16384 bytes >> sha1 90515.06k 301813.93k 551106.78k 701554.35k >> 729893.50k 832176.13k >> >> >> >> sslc speed sha1 >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 16939397 sha1's in 2.99s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 11489920 sha1's in 3.00s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 5316410 sha1's in 2.99s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 2006834 sha1's in 3.00s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 273661 sha1's in 2.98s >> Doing sha1 for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 150159 sha1's in 2.99s >> OpenSSL 1.1.1 11 Sep 2018 >> built on: Tue Feb 12 18:18:22 2019 UTC >> options:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(int) aes(partial) idea(int) >> blowfish(ptr) >> compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -fPIC >> -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ >> -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 >> -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM >> -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM >> -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPADLOCK_ASM -DNDEBUG -fPIC >> The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed. >> type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 >> bytes 16384 bytes >> sha1 90645.60k 245118.29k 455184.27k 684999.34k >> 752292.25k 822811.06k >> >> Does not this means 1.1.1 process lesser number of bytes per second >> compared to 1.1.0e ? >> >> Thanks and Regards, >> Ram Krushna >> >> On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:46 PM Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com> wrote: >> >>> *> *Could you please look into the program and let me know if >>> anything I am doing wrong ? >>> >>> > Or else What could be the issue ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Sorry, no not me. Maybe someone else on the list has ideas. >>> >>