Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-new-httpd-archive@apache.org Received: (qmail 1890 invoked by uid 500); 16 Aug 2001 07:04:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact new-httpd-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Delivered-To: mailing list new-httpd@apache.org Received: (qmail 1870 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2001 07:04:00 -0000 Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 00:03:40 -0700 From: Justin Erenkrantz To: new-httpd@apache.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ab with SSL support Message-ID: <20010816000340.L1397@ebuilt.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from madhusudan_mathihalli@hp.com on Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 01:55:06PM -0700 X-AntiVirus: scanned for viruses by AMaViS 0.2.1-pre3 (http://amavis.org/) X-Spam-Rating: h31.sny.collab.net 1.6.2 0/1000/N Status: O X-Status: X-Keywords: X-UID: 641 On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 01:55:06PM -0700, MATHIHALLI,MADHUSUDAN (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: > Hi, > For those interested in having ApacheBench with SSL support, here's > the patch for ab.c.. I've done some tests (concurrency, keepalive, no. of > requests) - there are still a lot of features which are yet to be developed > for SSL connections.. The patch is pretty simple - I just replace the HTTP > open/read/write/close function calls by the corresponding SSL functions... > So, the basic functionality provided by AB for HTTP connections should now > be available for HTTPS connections also.. > The SSL support can be enabled by defining "USE_SSL" on the compile > line.. There's however, a small problem of performance penalty.. If AB is > compiled with USE_SSL = ON, then there'll be atleast 4 "if (ssl == 1)" > statements executed for HTTP transactions.. I'm trying to get around it - by > defining a separate path for HTTP & HTTPS transactions - any ideas are > welcome.. A better solution may be flood rather than ab (see httpd-test CVS repository). I'm sounding like a broken harp, but it'd be nice to get external feedback on flood after the work we've put into it - we're using it here internally, so we know it works, but I'd love to see what people think about it. Can we make it better (blah, blah, blah)? SSL works there (has all of the features you want to add to ab) and you can do lots more with it. That may come at *some* client-side performance penalty, but flood is still much more lightweight than the actual browsers people use. So, the performance "penalty" is probably negligable for meaningless benchmarks anyway. -- justin