Now I have checked with HP and it is the same processortypes in the
different HP machines ( They do not differ in instructions inside the CPU ).
They are supposed to handle large numbers in the same way. The slower
machine has actually a faster processor 64 MHz vs. 48 MHz.
Earlier I used a binary distribution of the gcc compiler, but now I have
also tested with local compiled gcc with same results. I am a little bit out
of ideés, anyone with ones ???
/Best Regards,
Patrick Harlin
----- Original Message -----
From: Bodo Moeller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Patrick Harlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, July 11, 1999 3:14 AM
Subject: Re: Slow Generation of RSA private keys and SSL handshake on HP-UX
9000/xxx...
> "Patrick Harlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I have tested on all the platforms several times, and I could still
> > see that one of the machines have problem with slow generation of
> > private keys. It seems like Test2 machine always is 3 minutes slower
> > then all other HP installations ??? One other odd thing is that this
> > machine has much slower negotiation ( 9 sec vs. 0.3 s ) ! See
> > timedifference between step 7 and 8 in SSL negotiation.
>
> What are the compiler options for those compilations (openssl version -f)
> -- do they include BN_LLONG or not? If BN_LLONG works and the
> processor has native 64 bit numbers (as long long type), this can
> accelerate bignum computations; but on the other hand if long long
> computations are just done by library routines, which apparently is
> what happens on some HP-UX platforms, they could slow done everythiing.
> ______________________________________________________________________
> OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
> User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
