On Friday, 10/19/2007 at 08:06 EDT, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What I see is:
>
> Error 0x800b0109 (CERT_E_UNTRUSTEDROOT) returned by
> CertVerifyCertificateChainPolicy!
> Connected to 171.177.29.52 port 6443
> from 171.184.0.226 port 2027
> ...
>
> The error is because we are u
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:31:16 -0400, Steve Bireley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi Alan,
>For telnet, the SSL session resume is insignificant since the sessions
last so long. Further, interactive sessions typically result in very
little traffic because users type slowly and the 3270 datastream
On Thu, 18 Oct 2007 17:54:32 -0400, Alan Altmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>On Thursday, 10/18/2007 at 04:07 EDT, Alan Ackerman
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> We don't have PCOMM, but QWS3270 Secure, so I don't know what our
>> situation will be. [re: Resumed SSL sessions]
>
>If you get a tr
ftware.com
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alan
Ackerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 4:05 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: MIPS for SSLSERV
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:43:51 -0400, Steve Bireley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Thursday, 10/18/2007 at 04:07 EDT, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't have PCOMM, but QWS3270 Secure, so I don't know what our
> situation will be. [re: Resumed SSL sessions]
If you get a trace (e.g. Wireshark or something built into QWS3270) you
can see if sessions are res
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 10:43:51 -0400, Steve Bireley
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The most expensive part of the connection is the public key exchange
during the SSL negotiation. This negotiation occurs every time the
control or data port is opened. In a multiple file transfer scenario,
each fi
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: Re: MIPS for SSLSERV
I can't say about TN3270, but if you assume that all encryption has the same
cost (i.e. cost per MB), then:
On SLES10, FTP encryption seemed to become the default vs older Suse systems.
When I FTP iso images now, it takes 4 X the CPU pow
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 00:03:17 -0500, Alan Ackerman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:03:07 -0400, David Kreuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
resources.com> wrote:
>
>>What else is running through the VM TCPIP stack?
>>What else are you encrypting via TCPIP and SSLSERV?
>>David
>
>Mainly FTP
On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:56:38 -0800, barton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
software.com> wrote:
>all TCPIP application (such as telnet) connects per second are reported
on ESATCPA report
>for z/VM connections if you have ESATCP or ESALPS. Overall connection
rates are reported
>for other servers on the ESA
I can't say about TN3270, but if you assume that all encryption has the same
cost (i.e. cost per MB), then:
On SLES10, FTP encryption seemed to become the default vs older Suse systems.
When I FTP iso images now, it takes 4 X the CPU power then the non-encrypted
version.
This is based on our z/
all TCPIP application (such as telnet) connects per second are reported on ESATCPA report
for z/VM connections if you have ESATCP or ESALPS. Overall connection rates are reported
for other servers on the ESATCP1 report.
Alan Ackerman wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 20:03:07 -0400, David Kreuter
What else is running through the VM TCPIP stack?
What else are you encrypting via TCPIP and SSLSERV?
David
-Original Message-
From: The IBM z/VM Operating System on behalf of Alan Ackerman
Sent: Tue 10/16/2007 7:01 PM
To: IBMVM@LISTSERV.UARK.EDU
Subject: [IBMVM] MIPS for SSLSERV
We
We have been asked to encrypt all TN3270 traffic to our VM systems (5
LPARS + 14? guests). I am planning to use the VM SSLSERV, running on Red
Hat (RHEL 4) Linux. My management wants me to estimate the MIPS (or CPU
cycles) cost of this. Any ideas?
I can get number of users logged in via TCP/
13 matches
Mail list logo
