чт, 25 мая 2023 г. в 17:11, Willy Tarreau <w...@1wt.eu>: > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 07:33:11AM -0600, Shawn Heisey wrote: > > On 3/11/23 22:52, Willy Tarreau wrote: > > > According to the OpenSSL devs, 3.1 should be "4 times better than 3.0", > > > so it could still remain 5-40 times worse than 1.1.1. I intend to run > > > some tests soon on it on a large machine, but preparing tests takes a > > > lot of time and my progress got delayed by the painful bug of last > week. > > > I'll share my findings anywya. > > > > Just noticed that quictls has a special branch for lock changes in 3.1.0: > > > > https://github.com/quictls/openssl/tree/openssl-3.1.0+quic+locks > > Yes, it was made so that the few of us who reported important issues can > retest the impact of the changes. I hope to be able to run a test on a > smaller machine soon. > > > I am not sure how to go about proper testing for performance on this. I > did > > try a very basic "curl a URL 1000 times in bash" test back when 3.1.0 was > > released, but that showed 3.0.8 and 3.1.0 were faster than 1.1.1, so > > concurrency is likely required to see a problem. > > The problem definitely is concurrency, so 1000 curl will show nothing > and will not even match production traffic. You'll need to use a load >
I do not think 1000 instances of curl are required. I recall doing some comparative tests (when we evaluated arm64 servers), some really lightweight with profiling enabled were enough to compare "before" and "after". I'll try the JMeter next weekend maybe. > generator that allows you to tweak the TLS resume support, like we do > with h1load's argument "--tls-reuse". Also I don't know how often the > recently modified locks are used per server connection and per client > connection, that's what the SSL guys want to know since they're not able > to test their changes. > > The first test report *before* the changes was published here a month > ago: > > > https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/20286#issuecomment-1527869072 > > And now we have to find time to setup a test platform to test this one > in more or less similar conditions (or at least run a before/after). > > Do not hesitate to participate if you see you can provide results > comparing the two quictls-3.1 branches, it will help already. It's even > possible that these efforts do not bring anything yet, we don't know and > that's what they want to know. > > Thanks, > Willy > >
