Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IPsec\s+performance\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*IPsec\s+performance\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:39:20 +0300 (EEST); Hi folks, I compared TCP-over-NULL-ESP vs. plain-TCP throughput with "ttcp" tool and obtained the following results: Plain-TCP: 11 megabytes/s NULL-ESP: 2.5 megabytes/s Am I doing something wrong? I; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00026.html (7,957 bytes)
2. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:09:02 +0300 (EEST); I browsed the archives also and found this one: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00801.html Nothing has been done for this? -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00027.html (8,884 bytes)
3. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:55:16 +0200 (CEST); On Mon, 2 May 2005, Miika Komu wrote: I compared TCP-over-NULL-ESP vs. plain-TCP throughput with "ttcp" tool and obtained the following results: Plain-TCP: 11 megabytes/s NULL-ESP: 2.5 megabytes/s I; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00036.html (8,980 bytes)
4. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:25:15 +0300 (EEST); Thanks for your response. However, this does explain why I got only 1.9 megabytes/s with 3DES. -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00044.html (9,164 bytes)
5. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 01:54:38 -0400; What was your hardware? Without knowing what you're running on, it's impossible to tell if that is good or bad. Linux Journal was getting ~5.5MB/s on a PIV 2.2GHz. I get ~2.1MB/s on a 550MHz Athlon.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00045.html (8,675 bytes)
6. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:44:24 +0300 (EEST); Intel Pentium III 500 MHz -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00046.html (9,097 bytes)
7. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 10:17:19 -0400; 3DES is processor intensive. I'd say 1.9MB/s is reasonable for the hardware you are on.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00064.html (9,437 bytes)
8. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:14:05 +0300 (EEST); Ok. Thanks for your quick responses! -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00067.html (9,864 bytes)
9. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:27:41 -0400; I should note that I mean reasonable given the current implementation -- you're seeing performance in line with numbers on other machines. I think it's been mentioned that our 3DES implementation has; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00070.html (9,623 bytes)
10. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 12:27:44 -0700; That's right. We only have an optimized AES implementation in assembler, and that's for i386 and x86_64 platforms only.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00071.html (9,529 bytes)
11. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: jamal <hadi@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 07:34:37 -0400; I tested on 2.4.x based on Davems code backport and contribution from Herbert > a year ago on a really bad Xeon 2.0Ghz(?), 32 bit bus mboard, e1000 NIC. I used a 2.4.x kernel because i was trying to; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg00144.html (11,983 bytes)
12. IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 21:39:20 +0300 (EEST); Hi folks, I compared TCP-over-NULL-ESP vs. plain-TCP throughput with "ttcp" tool and obtained the following results: Plain-TCP: 11 megabytes/s NULL-ESP: 2.5 megabytes/s Am I doing something wrong? I; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01315.html (7,987 bytes)
13. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:09:02 +0300 (EEST); I browsed the archives also and found this one: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00801.html Nothing has been done for this? -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01316.html (9,011 bytes)
14. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Patrick McHardy <kaber@xxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 02:55:16 +0200 (CEST); Plain-TCP: 11 megabytes/s NULL-ESP: 2.5 megabytes/s I browsed the archives also and found this one: http://oss.sgi.com/archives/netdev/2004-12/msg00801.html null encryption uses a block size of 1, wh; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01325.html (9,050 bytes)
15. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 08:25:15 +0300 (EEST); Thanks for your response. However, this does explain why I got only 1.9 megabytes/s with 3DES. -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01333.html (9,358 bytes)
16. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 01:54:38 -0400; What was your hardware? Without knowing what you're running on, it's impossible to tell if that is good or bad. Linux Journal was getting ~5.5MB/s on a PIV 2.2GHz. I get ~2.1MB/s on a 550MHz Athlon.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01334.html (8,880 bytes)
17. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 09:44:24 +0300 (EEST); Intel Pentium III 500 MHz -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01335.html (9,338 bytes)
18. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 10:17:19 -0400; 3DES is processor intensive. I'd say 1.9MB/s is reasonable for the hardware you are on.; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01353.html (9,710 bytes)
19. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Miika Komu <miika@xxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 3 May 2005 19:14:05 +0300 (EEST); Ok. Thanks for your quick responses! -- Miika Komu miika@xxxxxx http://www.iki.fi/miika/; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01356.html (10,175 bytes)
20. Re: IPsec performance (score: 1): Author: Dave Dillow <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 15:27:41 -0400; I should note that I mean reasonable given the current implementation -- you're seeing performance in line with numbers on other machines. I think it's been mentioned that our 3DES implementation has; /archives/netdev/2005-05/msg01359.html (9,968 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]