[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:22:46 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: 1.7.9-jumbo
On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 07:41:07PM +0100, magnum wrote:
> Memory comes back to me now... for the non-utf8 versions of set_key(),
> the 1.7.8 code was buggy. It truncated at 28 instead of 27 (but this was
> only a problem when running external mode). I have a patch somewhere
> that I can post soon, that re-introduces the tests as if external.c was
> not truncating, but that does it in a more effective way - and properly
> at max length. And if 1.7.8 would still be a tad faster after that, I
> will just say that's because it was buggy.
Are you saying that 1.7.8-jumbo's benchmark results for NT were
inflated because of a bug (I don't see how this can be the case...),
and that this has been corrected?
> For set_key_utf8(), the code present in jumbo-5 has got to be faster
> than 1.7.8, and now properly truncates at 27. In UTF-8 mode we must
> always take care of truncation since the "reported" max length is 3x27.
> Try running "-test -enc:utf8" comparing 178J8 and 179J5, that's a quick
> test only including Unicode formats.
1.7.8-jumbo-8:
$ ./john -te -fo=nt -enc=utf8
Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16] in UTF-8 mode... DONE
Raw: 21421K c/s real, 21421K c/s virtual
1.7.9-jumbo-5:
$ ./john -te -fo=nt -enc=utf8
Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16] in UTF-8 mode... DONE
Raw: 20427K c/s real, 20427K c/s virtual
(I repeated both runs twice, as usual - got similar results.)
So 1.7.8-jumbo-8 reports slightly faster speed even for utf8.
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
