[Info-vax] New OpenSSL update from HP

[Jan-Erik Soderholm]

Stephen Hoffman skrev den 2015-06-15 15:42:
> On 2015-06-15 03:25:41 +0000, David Froble said:
>
>
> A pool of those whose worker processes are how Apache works on most
> platforms.   Including OpenVMS.

Yes, for everything. And the point is that WASD does it all in
the main process, apart from specific perl/Python or other scripts.

So for simple fixed web pages there are no "worker process" at all.


>
>> But think about it.  You claim WASD is faster.  It has the same issues.
>> So, it isn't the common issues.  There has got to be other stuff in
>> Apache that makes it a dog.  Woof!

Apache and WASD are build in very different ways.

>
> Can't say I've noticed Apache being slow on OpenVMS...

Totalt useless information.

My Fiat Pinto isn't "slow" (it easily leaves any
bike behind). But it is not a Ferrari either.

In tests WASD is 2-10 times faster in most scenarios.

> But if Apache is slow, it's time to collect some data.

Have you at least read *any* of the links provided?
What "data" is you asking for?

>
> You're right (and again going wider...): the OpenVMS process management and
> control model is extremely limited...

Now, if I'm not totaly wrong, it is the best "process management and
control model" currently available on OpenVMS, isn't it?
So what that other OS'es does some things different?

>>
>> But, he's claiming that WASD is faster.  On the same HW.  So no, it's not
>> what you list.
>

And "he" is, who? Mark Daniel?

> Sure it is.  Apache I/O is likely different than WASD I/O.

What "I/O"? And "different" in what way?

>
>>> It may well be the process creation for the worker processes is the
>>> limiting factor, but I'd want to see some data before drilling in on
>>> that...
>>
>> I truly doubt it.
>>
>> My opinion, it's the bloated protocols in use.  SOAP.  XML.  Stuff like
>> that.

Totaly wrong, of course. If you test with SOAP, you test with SOAP
on both Apache and WASD, of course.

>
> Which means folks would want WASD to provide those, too.  Apache does have
> massive flexibility, which means it's going to have issues.  If you just
> want faster web services, it's usually nginx.
>
>> I've got to wonder.  Is there any real use for so many different ciphers
>> and such?  I'll admit that I know nothing of SSL.  Or is it all the
>> backward compatibility?

The point is that SSL 1,2 and 3 are "out". TLS 1.2 is what is used now.
SSL is default "off" in WASD today.