Skip to main content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
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 19 Nov 2015 8:17 pm, "Simone Bordet" <sbordet@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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
implementations ?

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) ?

Simone Bordet
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