This is a discussion on Re: Mod_ssl and how to reduce overhead - modssl ; On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:28:11AM -0400, Pigeon wrote: > Hmm.. 10k -100k are pretty much guaranteed numbers.. > That's quite a wide margin. Are we talking concurrent users or just number of people who could be using it ...
On Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 11:28:11AM -0400, Pigeon wrote:
> Hmm.. 10k -100k are pretty much guaranteed numbers..
That's quite a wide margin. Are we talking concurrent users or just
number of people who could be using it over a period of xx?
> So my main computer crunching will be done at the beginning? (and to relive
> this I can do session key caching.. how long can I cache a key? is this
> 'secure'?) (also.. all transfers will be ~15megs in size)
well, with 15meg files you've got more work to do encrypting the content
as the session goes along. You can cache the key as long as you want,
but depending on the type of encryption used, most browsers will not
allow the key to live for all that long. I usually run for about 1 hour,
but ymmv depending on the chosen parameters.
> And using a single server is out of the question?
the number of concurrent users has very much to say in that regard.
Maybe an ibm power 5 64 proc or a fully loaded sun e25k - and add an
ssl accelerator to the mix.
> If we just go with one server.. shouldn't it be something super fast..
> amd64 1gig ram?
Super fast / amd 64 with only 1 gig mem? you've got to be kidding - I'm
pretty sure you couldn't keep even without SSL.
Doesn't your pr0n streaming business generate enough income to pay for a
`Darn it, who spiked my coffee with water?!' - lwall
Apache Interface to OpenSSL (mod_ssl) www.modssl.org
User Support Mailing List firstname.lastname@example.org
Automated List Manager email@example.com