[standards-jig] Stream Compression

Dave dave at dave.tj
Thu May 2 20:19:38 UTC 2002


Oops :-(

 - Dave


Julian Missig wrote:
> 
> Dave, you need to stop stating things as facts when you obviously have
> not done any research on the topic whatsoever. I just typed "SSL
> compression" into google and I got a bunch of documents on how you
> enable compression in SSL.
> 
> In fact, there's a nice little page on the current situation of
> compression in SSL using the OpenSSL library:
> http://www.openssl.org/docs/ssl/SSL_COMP_add_compression_method.html
> 
> TSLv1, the method Gabber uses, supports compression. It's simply a
> matter of getting client and server to negotiate the same compression
> method. After agreeing upon a standard set of compression IDs for
> Jabber, it would take probably 1-3 lines of code in Gabber and maybe a
> few more in the server to get compression enabled in Jabber SSL
> sessions. What Mike Lin describes would take a heck of a lot more work
> than that...
> 
> Please, Dave, while I appreciate the amount of time you spend on Jabber,
> the message you just sent was utterly worthless because you really don't
> know the facts. You were just telling me I was wrong for the sake of
> telling me I'm wrong.
> 
> Also, before you argue that SSL adds the encryption overhead, jer just
> pointed out to me that it's probably possible to tell SSL to use a null
> cipher, so you essentially get what Mike Lin described. Looking at the
> OpenSSL headers and documentation, it seems possible, but I will admit
> that I haven't tried it.
> 
> Julian
> 
> On Thu, 2002-05-02 at 15:34, Dave wrote:
> > This isn't about UDP, so I believe I'm allowed to reply to your message:
> > SSL doesn't compress; it only encrypts.
> > 
> >  - Dave
> > 
> > 
> > Julian Missig wrote:
> > > 
> > > http://mailman.jabber.org/pipermail/jdev/2002-January/009560.html
> > > 
> > > Is Mike Lin's post on gzipping Jabber. He put together code tests and
> > > everything... and his conclusion was that once you put together all the
> > > pieces needed to make gzip into something decent for Jabber, you're very
> > > close to SSL (so why not just use SSL?). See other messages in the
> > > thread for further information.
> > > 
> > > Julian
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 2002-05-01 at 18:23, Dave wrote:
> > > > Dial-up users also like to download data, you know. . .
> > > > 
> > > >  - Dave ... who likes to let people optimize at their own bottlenecks :-)
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Craig wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > > <gzip-over-udp-madness snipped>
> > > > > 
> > > > > I know this is obvious, but I just _have_ to chime in with it.  I've 
> > > > > done a fair amount of load testing of JCS in a lot of different 
> > > > > configurations.  Load tests are typically done on a 100Mbit network 
> > > > > (shared, not segmented) -- probably less than you'd have on the 
> > > > > backplane of a serious install.  Running at seriously high throughput, 
> > > > > it turns out that processor -- not network is the bottleneck for a mix 
> > > > > of JUD/TC/IM traffic.  Couple this with the exceptional job that modern 
> > > > > network hardware does at text compression and I'm left wondering what 
> > > > > the advantages in udp-as-tcp-with-gzip are here?  Are folks running 
> > > > > servers with thousands of users at home on the other side of a dialup? 
> > > > >  Are end users having a problem with the couple hundred bytes going 
> > > > > through every so often?  Are people really having problems with the 
> > > > > bandwidth?  Am I just not getting it?
> > > > > 
> > > > > --Craig, who likes to optimize at known bottlenecks.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Standards-JIG mailing list
> Standards-JIG at jabber.org
> http://mailman.jabber.org/listinfo/standards-jig
> 




More information about the Standards mailing list