Hi ,
I have installed openssl from scratch and there I am not observing any degradation. But I built it with in my project, there I observe the degradation. The Configure file remains same , but still in my project I can see a difference that "dynamic-engine" is present in enabled feature list.
But In Configure file its present in disabled list. So, Could anyone suggest how this can be disabled ?
And I want to build the openssl outside my project) with dynamic-engine enabled. What Configure argument shall i pass or make changes in Configure file to achive that ?
Thanks and Regards,
Ram Krushna
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:46 AM ramakrushna mishra <rama.krushna7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi ,The results on a AIX machine looks more bad If I am interpreting them correctly.openssl 1.1.0e :The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytessha1 65019.16k 151552.49k 266107.41k 337113.93k 360792.93k 364102.89kopenssl 1.1.1 :The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytessha1 10641.28k 21433.09k 38464.85k 48496.92k 49381.38k 51755.48kcould any one please confirm if my interpretation is correct ?I doubt any issue with openssl 1.1.1 version with such wider user base.How to debug this further ?Thanks and Regards,Ram KrushnaOn Fri, May 10, 2019 at 5:59 AM ramakrushna mishra <rama.krushna7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,Could anyone please help me wth it.Following are sslc speed results for SHA1.sslc speed sha1Doing sha1 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 16858430 sha1's in 2.98sDoing sha1 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 14147528 sha1's in 3.00sDoing sha1 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 6436755 sha1's in 2.99sDoing sha1 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 2055335 sha1's in 3.00sDoing sha1 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 266404 sha1's in 2.99sDoing sha1 for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 152376 sha1's in 3.00sOpenSSL 1.1.0e 16 Feb 2017built on: reproducible build, date unspecifiedoptions:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(ptr)compiler: gcc -DDSO_DLFCN -DHAVE_DLFCN_H -DNDEBUG -DOPENSSL_THREADS -DOPENSSL_NO_STATIC_ENGINE -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DPADLOCK_ASM -DOPENSSLDIR="\"/vobs_prgs/tools/linuxx86_64/openssl/install\"" -DENGINESDIR="\"/vobs_prgs/tools/linuxx86_64/openssl/install/lib/engines-1.1\""The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytessha1 90515.06k 301813.93k 551106.78k 701554.35k 729893.50k 832176.13ksslc speed sha1Doing sha1 for 3s on 16 size blocks: 16939397 sha1's in 2.99sDoing sha1 for 3s on 64 size blocks: 11489920 sha1's in 3.00sDoing sha1 for 3s on 256 size blocks: 5316410 sha1's in 2.99sDoing sha1 for 3s on 1024 size blocks: 2006834 sha1's in 3.00sDoing sha1 for 3s on 8192 size blocks: 273661 sha1's in 2.98sDoing sha1 for 3s on 16384 size blocks: 150159 sha1's in 2.99sOpenSSL 1.1.1 11 Sep 2018built on: Tue Feb 12 18:18:22 2019 UTCoptions:bn(64,64) rc4(16x,int) des(int) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(ptr)compiler: gcc -fPIC -pthread -m64 -Wa,--noexecstack -fPIC -DOPENSSL_USE_NODELETE -DL_ENDIAN -DOPENSSL_PIC -DOPENSSL_CPUID_OBJ -DOPENSSL_IA32_SSE2 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_MONT5 -DOPENSSL_BN_ASM_GF2m -DSHA1_ASM -DSHA256_ASM -DSHA512_ASM -DKECCAK1600_ASM -DRC4_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DAES_ASM -DVPAES_ASM -DBSAES_ASM -DGHASH_ASM -DECP_NISTZ256_ASM -DX25519_ASM -DPADLOCK_ASM -DNDEBUG -fPICThe 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.type 16 bytes 64 bytes 256 bytes 1024 bytes 8192 bytes 16384 bytessha1 90645.60k 245118.29k 455184.27k 684999.34k 752292.25k 822811.06kDoes not this means 1.1.1 process lesser number of bytes per second compared to 1.1.0e ?Thanks and Regards,Ram KrushnaOn Thu, May 9, 2019 at 11:46 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:> Could you please look into the program and let me know if anything I am doing wrong ?
> Or else What could be the issue ?
Sorry, no not me. Maybe someone else on the list has ideas.
