title: Terminating a high volume of SSL connections cost effectively
body: <p>I have recently set up a Node.js based web socket server that has been tested to handle around 2,000 new connection requests per second on a small EC2 instance (m1.small).  Considering the cost of a m1.small instance, and the ability to put multiple instances behind a WebSocket capable proxy server such as HAProxy, we are very happy with the results.</p>
  
  <p>However, we realised we had not done any testing using SSL yet, so looked into a number of SSL options.  It became apparent that terminating SSL connections at the proxy server is ideal because then the proxy server can inspect the traffic and insert headers such as X-Forward-For so that the server knows which IP the request came from.</p>
  
  <p>So I looked into a number of solutions such as Pound, stunnel and stud, all of which allowed incoming connections on 443 to be terminated, and then passed onto HAProxy on port 80, which in turn passes the connection onto the web servers.  Unfortunately however, I found that sending traffic to the SSL termination proxy server on a c1.medium (High CPU) instance very quickly consumed all CPU resources, and only at a rate of 50 or so requests per second.  I tried using all three of the solution listed above, and all of them performed roughly the same as I assume under the hood they all rely on OpenSSL anyway.  I tried using a 64 bit very large High CPU instance (c1.xlarge) and found that performance only scale linearly with cost.  So based on EC2 pricing, I'd need to pay roughly $600p/m for 200 SSL requests per second, as opposed to $60p/m for 2,000 non SSL requests per second.  The former price becomes economically unviable very quickly when we start planning to accept 1,000s or 10,000s of requests per second. </p>
  
  <p>I also tried terminating the SSL using Node.js' https server, and the performance was very similar to Pound, stunnel and stud, so no clear advantage to that approach.</p>
  
  <p>So what I am hoping someone can help with is advising how I can get around this ridiculous cost we have to absorb to provide SSL connections.  I have heard that SSL hardware accelerators provide much better performance as the hardware is designed for SSL encryption and decryption, but as we are currently using Amazon EC2 for all of our servers, using SSL hardware accelerators is not an option unless we have a separate data centre with physical servers.  I am just struggling to see how the likes of Amazon, Google, Facebook can provide all their traffic over SSL when the cost of this is so high.  There must be a better solution out there.</p>
  
  <p>Any advice or ideas would be greatly appreciated.</p>
  
  <p>Thanks
  Matt</p>