[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120630164833.YAF8V.309852.imail@eastrmwml113>
Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2012 16:48:33 -0400
From: <jfoug@....net>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: SHA2 added to bleeding
---- jfoug <jfoug@....net> wrote:
> I have added sha2.c and sha2.h and modified a lot of formats, to remove the
> oSSL version dependency for SHA224/256/384/512 from JtR.
>
Here are some quick and dirty 'speed' tests:
Speed tests for new JtR sha2.c code (generic vs oSSL)
All tests on: AMD Atholon64-3400 dual core, non OMP build.
linux-x86-64 build
raw-sha256 384 512
OpenSSL 2517K 1999k 2086k
Generic 2303k 1751k 1808k
Percent 91.5% 87.6% 86.7%
win32-cygwin-x86-sse2i build (old 3.4.4 gcc)
raw-sha256 384 512
OpenSSL 1910K 920k 949k
Generic 1807k 205k 209k
Percent 94.6% 22% 22%
VC 2005 build (32 bit release)
raw-sha256 384 512
OpenSSL 1804K 937k 973k
Generic 1807k 427k 437k
Percent 100% 45.5% 44.8%
Hopefully the above formats somewhat OK. I did this from a smart phone, VPN'd in to my desktop.
I was glad to see that the 64 bit SHA2 formats did acceptable on a 64 bit build. They suck on 32 bit, but I am pretty sure that the ossl code is all in asm on the 32 bit stuff (or at least they must have asm for ror64(x) )
All tests were done on the same older Athlon 64, fully idle.
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.
