Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:39:07 -0600 From: "Jacques A. Vidrine" <nectar@FreeBSD.org> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: HEADS UP: OpenSSL 0.9.7 in -STABLE Message-ID: <20030225153907.GC96816@madman.celabo.org> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030225102526.05852540@marble.sentex.ca> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030224145408.05edb800@marble.sentex.ca> <20030214223844.GA96059@madman.celabo.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030224145408.05edb800@marble.sentex.ca> <5.2.0.9.0.20030225102526.05852540@marble.sentex.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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? Cheers, -- Jacques A. Vidrine <nectar@celabo.org> http://www.celabo.org/ NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos jvidrine@verio.net . nectar@FreeBSD.org . nectar@kth.se 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?20030225153907.GC96816>