<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 4, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Paul Gray <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gray@cs.uni.edu">gray@cs.uni.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On 11/04/2010 08:20 AM, Josh More wrote:<br>
> I do not believe that wget is a good tool for testing SSL, as it will<br>
> have to negotiate the keys every time it runs. A browser should do it<br>
> on the first hit and then store them for future hits so the entire<br>
> session is reasonable.<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>True, but you can use wget's "--no-check-certificate" option to bypass the<br>
majority of the check.<font color="#888888"><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br clear="all">Ah, thanks guys. I used "track resources" in Chrome and the latency is only 100ms. Using <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; ">--no-check-certificate did speed up wget but put it at .379.</span><div>
<br></div><div>Hmm... actually, now that I think about it, the use case for this site is as a web service. Testing in Chrome isn't really that important. I did test with curl and got similar results to wget --no-check-certificate.</div>
<div><br></div><div>I can live with it, but am happy to hear any other tips. Because it's a web service I don't know if caching will help much.</div><div><br>-- <br>Matthew Nuzum<br>newz2000 on freenode, skype, linkedin, <a href="http://identi.ca" target="_blank">identi.ca</a> and twitter<br>
<br>"An investment in knowledge pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin <br><br>
</div>