Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:40:37 +0000 (GMT) From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> Cc: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net>, freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OpenSSL 0.9.7 in -STABLE Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0302261239560.27130-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20030225153907.GC96816@madman.celabo.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2003 at 10:30:54AM -0500, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 07:32 AM 25/02/2003 -0600, Jacques A. Vidrine wrote: > > > >I believe you also need `device cryptodev', else when your application > > >tries to open /dev/crypto it will get ENXIO (use truss or ktrace to > > >see if this is what is happening). > > > > That was it, Thanks! > > Great! > > > There is now a VERY noticeable difference in the amount of CPU that sshd > > takes. The backup server is a PIII800. When doing a dump from a fast > > client, with 3des I was looking at close to 40%-50% of CPU going to sshd on > > the server. Now I see about 3%-5%. > > So how is the total throughput? Is it a win or a lose with the 7951? Excuse my curiosity: would measuring the throughput of a loopback ssh link give a good estimate of this? -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Theory and practice _are_ the same thing. In theory. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.44.0302261239560.27130-100000>