|Re: [jetty-users] Unix socket performance numbers|
I'm testing all 4 possibilities. The 30% slow down is from clear text direct to jetty verses clear text proxied to jetty. No ssl. That makes sense to me as the proxy requires handling by 2 processes with the same cpu available.
The 100% improvement is comparing direct ssl with proxied+offloaded ssl. It shows the ssl performance gains are more than enough to compensate for the costs of proxying.
On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 6:09 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> So here are some numbers using ab with keep alive option:
> HTTP :8080 98634.66 [#/sec] 117224.98 [Kbytes/sec]
> HTTP :8888 67073.40 [#/sec] 79715.16 [Kbytes/sec]
> HTTPS:8443 23622.46 [#/sec] 28074.74 [Kbytes/sec]
> HTTPS:8843 52365.51 [#/sec] 62235.18 [Kbytes/sec]
Proxying via HAProxy seem to slow down clear-text HTTP by 30%. That
seems *a lot* to me.
Are you offloading TLS at HAProxy and then forwarding the clear-text
bytes to backend ?
So the TLS numbers are actually measuring the difference in TLS
If you're not offloading TLS at HAProxy, then how come passing raw
bytes to the backend yields such a difference (lose 30% for clear-text
bytes, *gain* 100% for encrypted bytes) ?
Developer advice, training, services and support
from the Jetty & CometD experts.
jetty-users mailing list
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
Back to the top