[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EEE0EE6.3020809@hushmail.com>
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 17:03:50 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: 1.7.9-jumbo
On 12/18/2011 04:19 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 06:48:33PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
>> Minimum: 0.81602 real, 0.81602 virtual
> ...
>> Also, someone could want to identify the format that became 18% slower
>> and see if this is reproducible and if it can be avoided (in a future
>> version).
>
> It's CRC-32. On 1.7.8-jumbo-8 we had:
>
> Benchmarking: CRC-32 [32/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 63225K c/s real, 63225K c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 28983K c/s real, 28696K c/s virtual
>
> 1.7.9-jumbo-5 gives only:
>
> Benchmarking: CRC-32 [32/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 51593K c/s real, 51593K c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 27557K c/s real, 27557K c/s virtual
>
> (same machine, same compiler, same make target, no load).
The change is that in 1.7.8, we always had 16K keys_per_crypt, and in
1.7.9 we have 8K x number of threads (the latter is capped to 4, because
it does not scale further). I did that on some AMD hardware using
gcc-4.5 and I did not see this performance drop (on the contrary).
The fastest formats will always show these variations depending on
hardware and exact compiler version but we could possibly change this to
16K x number of threads and see if it helps.
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.
