Re: [hybi] Masking overhead with measurements and code

Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> Mon, 10 January 2011 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <gregw@intalio.com>
X-Original-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hybi@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB3DF28C0F6 for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:05:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.93
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.93 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.047, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GRKi9N0kDNDQ for <hybi@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:05:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E720528C0ED for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:05:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so3828668qwi.31 for <hybi@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.224.36.208 with SMTP id u16mr26652569qad.299.1294650485674; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
Sender: gregw@intalio.com
Received: by 10.220.160.12 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jan 2011 01:08:05 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=y75Pi2TCUd_KS1RbAgUD2OjDLYX_QnRrOXMba@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110108111632.GI2479@1wt.eu> <1294531527.7650.535.camel@ds9.ducksong.com> <AANLkTi=aHRD5tazXX7TqR3gHo9QWe9SLtvHjDghS1UjW@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTi=y75Pi2TCUd_KS1RbAgUD2OjDLYX_QnRrOXMba@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:08:05 +0100
X-Google-Sender-Auth: lIIM6SCooT2je6TZiMBS5SMJM74
Message-ID: <AANLkTin2sLa1z=W6TE3tJmg1gJLQHhw6w_91wq4XQzUe@mail.gmail.com>
From: Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Cc: "hybi@ietf.org" <hybi@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [hybi] Masking overhead with measurements and code
X-BeenThere: hybi@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Server-Initiated HTTP <hybi.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hybi>
List-Post: <mailto:hybi@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hybi>, <mailto:hybi-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2011 09:05:53 -0000

On 9 January 2011 16:14, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 1:43 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@webtide.com> wrote:
>>
>
> Wow, I think you have this completely backwards: it's in systems that
> do almost nothing
> that the cost of adding a new, expensive operation is large. In
> systems that are already
> doing a lot of other processing, the marginal cost is comparaitvely
> low even though it may
> occasionally push you over some threshold; Amdahl's law and all that.


Eric,

I did not say system that are "already doing a lot of other
processing", I said systems where parsing is around 5% of the CPU
load.   This may be for a high message rate on a large server or it
may be for a low message rate on a constrained device.   For such
systems, multiplying the CPU work needed to parse a message several
times will have significant impacts.

Besides, it is self evident that adding cryptographic processing to a
protocol puts additional loads on application servers - we need only
look at SSL and the existence of SSL offload devices.

regards