[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E6941FE.7010903@bredband.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2011 00:30:22 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: RE: New pkzip format [Moved to 'onlist' ]
On 2011-09-09 00:21, jfoug wrote:
> The code does slow things down. There is a lot more seen in the '1 salt'
> testing, due to many more calls to set_key(), and each one of those now
> performing a strcpy, but again, my changes to bench.c is a 2 minute hack,
> and not how it really should be done.
NT went from 27M c/s down to 18M c/s from the more work put in bench.c.
> But the above shows that pkzip format is not the only one which the existing
> benchmark algorithm is under representing the true speed.
I think it would be correct to add this new "test method". I had a look
at format->params.benchmark_length and it appears if you set it to a
positive number (eg 8) there will be separate figures for lengths <=8
and length >8. Perhaps we could add this new "test method" as -2 and
still report it as one salt/many salts.
magnum
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.
