[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BF47B0E4F31342FC8874802573B5AE56@D9VGLK61>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:33:35 -0500
From: "JimF" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: RE: New pkzip format [Moved to 'onlist' ]
From: "magnum" <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
> 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.
I realize that non-salted (and 1 salt) runs are going to be slowed down,
from what the default is. However, on this machine, what is the 'true'
speed you see, if using one of the faster methods, like
inc:alnum, -inc:alpha, etc? I bet the 'real' performance is much closer to
18M than it is to 27M :)
Jim.
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.
