The TLS/SSL Speed Myth – Why "Encrypted" might actually be Faster

[gokby]

 Myth Busted: Why we’re seeing better Latency on TLS/SSL Ports compared to Standard Ports


"Many people claim that TLS/SSL ports slow down worker speed, but where is the proof? We’ve found these claims to be little more than 'neighborhood gossip.' Our data shows that SSL ports are actually faster. In our recent tests, standard ports had a ping of 17.6 ms, while TLS ports hit 14.57 ms. This is our theory based on our setup, but we know results can vary. We’d love to hear from you—if you've tested this, please share your results with us!"

We ran extensive tests to compare the two, and the results were surprising. Instead of a slowdown, we measured a significant performance boost when switching to TLS.

Our Test Results:

    Standard Ports: 17.60 ms (Average Ping)

    TLS/SSL Ports: 14.57 ms (Average Ping)

Why is TLS faster?(Our Theory & Evidence):
While it's true that encryption adds a tiny bit of CPU overhead, the networking benefits often outweigh it for several reasons:

   ISP Prioritization: Many Internet Service Providers (ISPs) prioritize traffic on common SSL ports (like 443) because they are used for secure web browsing, while 'unrecognized' traffic on standard mining ports might be throttled or deprioritized.

    Bypassing Deep Packet Inspection (DPI): Some routers and ISPs use DPI to scan unencrypted traffic, which adds latency. Encrypted TLS packets are often 'fast-tracked' because the contents cannot be inspected in real-time.

   Modern Infrastructure: Many modern data centers have optimized their routing paths specifically for encrypted traffic, leading to more efficient hops between your worker and the pool.

We want to hear from you!
Every setup is unique, and while our data clearly favors TLS, results can vary based on your location and ISP.

Have you run a side-by-side comparison? Please share your ping times and worker speeds below. Let’s move past the gossip and look at the real data!"

https://gokby.com/assets/img/nerdqxe-tls-port-ping-time-to-gokby.jpg
https://gokby.com/assets/img/worker-stats-tls-tcp.jpg

[Nexus9090]

Your argument is well reasoned.

I agree that TLS encrypted data is prioritized and is likely to be faster for the reasons you mention:-

* Switches and routers are unable to do deep packet inspection so just pass-through the data saving time.
* TLS is often prioritized by ISP's and network infrastructure as it is timestamped thus has priority.
* TLS network stacks are often heavily optimized and inspected for both performance and security, so generally are better coded.

In terms of side by side comparison, my experience is limited to product development of a GPS tracking device that used TLS encryption on the return channel, this was always faster by 10's of mS than unencrypted TCP/IP or UDP particularly noticeable over long network hops.

[gokby]

Your argument is well reasoned.

I agree that TLS encrypted data is prioritized and is likely to be faster for the reasons you mention:-

* Switches and routers are unable to do deep packet inspection so just pass-through the data saving time.
* TLS is often prioritized by ISP's and network infrastructure as it is timestamped thus has priority.
* TLS network stacks are often heavily optimized and inspected for both performance and security, so generally are better coded.

In terms of side by side comparison, my experience is limited to product development of a GPS tracking device that used TLS encryption on the return channel, this was always faster by 10's of mS than unencrypted TCP/IP or UDP particularly noticeable over long network hops.

Thank you so much for sharing these insights! Your explanation makes a lot of sense, especially the point about routers skipping Deep Packet Inspection for TLS data. It’s also fascinating to hear about your GPS device project—a 10ms+ difference is quite significant in that context. I really appreciate you adding such valuable real-world data to the discussion!

[icoprofits]

TLS overhead is negligible on modern hardware. The security benefits far outweigh any minor latency. The myth persists from older days when encryption actually was slow.

[gokby]

TLS overhead is negligible on modern hardware. The security benefits far outweigh any minor latency. The myth persists from older days when encryption actually was slow.

In my opinion, TLS only causes a negligible increase in CPU usage. How do we know? There is no noticeable change in ASIC temperatures, cooling fan speeds remain the same, and there’s no significant rise in energy consumption. As for the benefits, it prevents malicious actors from hijacking the time, Hardware and energy you’ve already invested.