[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110818145753.GA1955@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:57:53 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: john-1.7.8-mscashcuda-0.diff
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 04:45:04PM +0200, Lukas Odzioba wrote:
> 2011/8/18 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
> > I guess it might be something similar to the issue with
> > john-1.7.8-allcuda-0.2.diff, where 3 of 4 hash types fail for me, but
> > work for you. You mentioned it's related to GPU family differences, and
> > that you know how to fix it, so I think you don't need additional detail.
>
> I'll try to fix that, and I must admit that OpenCL much architecture
> neutral, or I am doing something wrong.
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "OpenCL much architecture
neutral" (as well as what this has to do with your CUDA patches).
> It was just quick draft of fast MSCash not slow MSCash2, so I didn't
> spend much time on that and renaming is not needed. It is 20M not 20K
> c/s, and as rest fast hashes for 80-85% time gpu idles.
Oops. I was so sure that you'd work on MSCash2 rather than MSCash that
I didn't realize the patch was in fact for the latter. Yes, you listed
"20671K c/s", which is 20M.
So, we need MSCash2 and something like 20k c/s instead. ;-)
Just why did you start working on fast MSCash? I think this was never
planned to be part of your work for this summer. Instead, you have
MSCash2 and OpenCL stuff to work on (and also making your other/older
slow hash patches more reliable/portable/faster).
Thanks,
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.
