62
1400
3000
ssl_session
ssl_session
1200
ssl_bf
ssl_bf
1000
2500
800
600
Throughput
2000
400
200
Average Request Latency (ms)
0
1500
20
18
16
14
12
20
18
16
14
12
k
k
(a) Latency
(b) Throughput
Fig. 4.6. Average Latency and Throughput of a 32 node Application Server
Figure 4.5 (a) shows the average request latency with the RR, ssl with session
and ssl with bf models. We can observe that RR shows the worst performance since sub 
sequent requests from a client are not likely to be forwarded to the same server, which
caches the previous session information of the client. Thus, CPU cycles are wasted to
re authenticate and negotiate keys between a client and a server. The results of RR show
that the SSL setup procedure is the main bottleneck in application servers. Therefore,
this experiment indicates that in a cluster based Web server, which provides SSL con 
nections, good performance cannot be obtained with a distribution policy that considers
only the cache locality or resource utilization. User locality for the reuse of the session
information is the critical factor to improve performance. Figure 4.5 (a) also shows that
the proposed ssl with bf scheme has much lower latency than the ssl with session. Al 
though the difference is not clear in the figure because the latency of the RR distributor
is too high compared to the other two models, the latency of ssl with bf is about 50% less












  

Home

About Services Network Support FAQ Order Contact
 

 

Clan Web Hosting

Our partners:Jsp Web Hosting Unlimited Web Hosting Cheapest Web Hosting  Java Web Hosting Web Templates Best Web Templates PHP Mysql Web Hosting Interland Web Hosting Cheap Web Hosting PHP Web Hosting Tomcat Web Hosting Quality Web Hosting Best Web Hosting  Mac Web Hosting 

Lunarwebhost.net  Business web hosting division of Vision Web Hosting Inc. All rights reserved