|
|
|
|
|
|
by mtrojnar
5228 days ago
|
|
|
1. It's you who started the flame by publishing your obviously unfair comparison. 2. I didn't receive your email (if you really sent it). 3. Stunnel overrides the OpenSSL default of enabling compression by default since version 4.51 released over a month ago http://www.stunnel.org/?page=sdf_ChangeLog 4. Whether compression is useful or not depends on many factors, including not only type of data, but also available bandwidth and CPU power. And data compression is not an illusion. I'd be afraid to use your products if you don't understand it. 5. Compression is indeed much slower than encryption. This is a fact. Do you really mean that your product is better just because it doesn't support compression? 6. Stunnel is indeed a performance bottleneck, but only if your internet connection is over 0.5Gbps, and your server is as slow as my desktop: http://www.stunnel.org/?page=perf |
|
|
2. Yes, I sent it, sorry you didn't receive it.
3. I did a standard apt-get install for stunnel on the Ubuntu Oneric system.
4. Sigh. I'm not going to comment on that one.
5. Really don't know where you would get this idea. Also don't understand why you get so upset. As I said, I was more than happy to discuss this with you ahead of time. Let me try to explain this again: I suggested that most real-world data is already compressed, thus the benefits you could derive by doing compression on the wire are lessened to the point where compression won't get you anything. For any compressable data, compressing it before sending is great and beneficial and I never stated otherwise.