[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADkMHC=f+hTiEPUX8EbdQrHybp7JUg_WyRF1bFdViVB3GgooyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:24:02 -0700
From: RB <aoz.syn@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: DES BS + OMP improvements, MPI direction
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:36, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> It is unclear from what you wrote above whether having completed that
> single set would be any better or not. You seem to imply that it would,
> but this is not so obvious.
I'm sorry - yes, I am implying that for a time-limited run, completing
the largest number of passes and thereby minimizing that run's
sparseness is, if not desirable (better), at least what the typical
user is going to expect.
>> It would be fascinating (but programmatically challenging) to
>> have the implementation automatically switch approaches (or reduce
>> working unit size) as timing for individual sets clears a given
>> threshold.
>
> I previously proposed how to do something like that (and even better) in
> the last paragraph of:
>
> http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2005/11/21/2
Now I remember you linking that for me before; thanks for the repeated
lesson. :) The range-splitting is certainly elegant and ideal, the
devil would be making that approach light enough to scale reasonably
for even relatively fast hashes. A full master/slave network model
might be too much (which I'm certain you're aware of).
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.
