[stunnel-users] Inconsistent performance across stunnel and/or OpenSSL versions
ppingpongbaker at gmail.com
Thu Apr 18 21:02:17 CEST 2013
It appears including static DH params in the certificate brings the
performance back up in 4.40 and onward.
Would like to mark this RESOLVED.
On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 11:29 PM, PPingPongBaker PPingPongBaker <
ppingpongbaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> Another data point after a binary search across versions keeping OpenSSL
> version identical at 1.0.1e
> I see this performance regression between stunnel versions 4.39 and 4.40.
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 4:46 PM, PPingPongBaker PPingPongBaker <
> ppingpongbaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 12:23 PM, Janusz Dziemidowicz <
>> rraptorr at nails.eu.org> wrote:
>>> 2013/4/17 PPingPongBaker PPingPongBaker <ppingpongbaker at gmail.com>:
>>> If you want to compare various stunnel versions, then use the same
>>> OpenSSL version. If you want to compare OpenSSL... then use the same
>>> stunnel version. The configuration you mentioned above doesn't make a
>>> lot of sense as it makes it hard to tell where the performance drop
>>> comes from. If you really must test such configuration, the best way
>>> would be to ensure the same TLS version (1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2, OpenSSL
>>> 1.0.1 defaults to 1.2) and the same cipher.
>> Hi Janusz,
>> As per your suggestions and mea culpa in some stated results. Here is a
>> hopefully complete/better matrix. Making sure that CPU is pegged at 100%
>> and in stunnel.conf (sslVersion = TLSv1)
>> stunnel 4.29, OpenSSL 0.9.8o - ~300 requests per sec
>> stunnel 4.29, OpenSSL 1.0.1e - ~360 requests per sec
>> stunnel 4.56, OpenSSL 0.9.8o - ~100 requests per sec
>> stunnel 4.56, OpenSSL 1.0.1e - ~120 requests per sec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the stunnel-users