[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANJ2NMMRTQ++CUSCHFO6PZrzybr71frdf-UipkhLWZ==xVqbfA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 15:56:16 +0800
From: myrice <qqlddg@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: About very high memory usage
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> Single crack mode does when you set min_keys_per_crypt this high, which
> was not expected when I designed this mode in almost its current form in
> 1998. We have two settings - min_keys_per_crypt and max_keys_per_crypt -
> precisely to make single crack mode behave better. The "min" should
> in fact be as low as possible while achieving reasonable performance.
> It is OK if the performance achieved at that setting is, say, twice
> worse than at "max". What would your "min" need to be for that? And if
> we allow for 10x worse c/s rate?
>
I got it. I set my "min" to be this since I want to full use GPU
resource(correspond to BLOCK_NUM*THREAD_NUM). I test lower
size(32*32), it takes 200MB+ memory. The memory seems reasonable if we
allocate every password candidate per salt. But it is a lot slower,
only 42K c/s :(
Thanks
myrice
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.
