Re: haproxy + stunnel

We changed from stunnel to nginx.
If you have several Vhosts (Certs ), you need several stunnel instances. Now its one instance.
Additionally nginx has more options to configure....

regards
Bernhard

Am 16.04.2010 06:45, schrieb Willy Tarreau:
> Hi Gabriel,
>
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 11:23:37PM -0300, Gabriel Sosa wrote:
>
>> I'm really happy using haproxy so far (so thank you), we are doing
>> load balancing of http and smtp with great results
>>
>> now we need to be able to LB ssl connections and get the ip of our customers.
>>
> For that you can use the x-forwarded-for patch for stunnel, available on
> haproxy's site.
>
>
>> In the official haproxy's site you guys recommend Stunnel as an option
>> to complement haproxy for ssl.
>>
>> Now, I know that haproxy can handle a good amount of traffic but do
>> you have any idea about this regarding Stunnel? Ssl will be used only
>> in few parts of the site but I still want know that Stunnel wont be my
>> bottle neck in the future.
>>
> In my experience, it performs quite well. You can get around 2000
> connections per second per 2GHz CPU core in thread mode. This assumes
> that keys are not renewed too often, of course. The thread model will
> inevitably limit the number of concurrent connections. I remember
> having performed some tests around a few thousand concurrent connections
> (around 2-3000), but you will probably not get much higher than that in
> this model. Also, SSL connections require heavy memory buffers, so if
> you're planning on reaching such numbers, you should definitely run
> some tests first to find the memory usage associated with your load.
> I may be wrong, but I recall numbers around 64kB per connection, plus
> the thread-local context.
>
> The advantage of using a TCP-level component such as stunnel is that
> it is completely scalable. Need more connections ? run it on multiple
> machines with LVS or haproxy in front of it and you're done.
>
> Regards,
> Willy
>
>
>
Received on 2010/04/16 07:40