In news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Dessent typed: > Cary Jamison wrote: > >> I think we all know that encryption is a factor. The site still >> states : > > No, I wouldn't say that we all know that. I just ran "openssl speed" > and on my very modest Athlon XP 1700 machine and both the aes-128 and > blowfish ciphers clocked in at approximately 60-65 megabytes/sec > throughput. That's about 50 times faster than the theoretical maximum > throughput of 10Base-T ethernet. Even this modest system can encrypt > 5 times faster than the absolute maximum rate of 100 megabit ethernet. > > I think you are vastly overestimating the CPU requirement of > encryption. And it is also why the original poster should not waste > his time trying to find a nonexistent, useless, and insecure option to > disable encryption.
Ok, I probably am. But, you wouldn't expect the buffer tuning to make such a big difference, either, since a fast processor can surely move data around in memory several times faster than it can move it over the net. All these things add up, though.... Cary -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
