[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <001501ce3fa4$6546ac80$2fd40580$@net>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 16:57:34 -0500
From: "jfoug" <jfoug@....net>
To: <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: RE: formats that duplicate dynamics
here are some quick/dirty timings.
$ ../run/john -test=5 -form=postgres
Benchmarking: PostgreSQL MD5 challenge-response [32/32]... (8xOMP) DONE
Raw: 4860K c/s real, 1548K c/s virtual
$ OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 ../run/john -test=5 -form=dynamic_1015
Benchmarking: dynamic_1015 md5(md5($p.$u).$s) [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics
480x4x3]... DONE
Many salts: 8669K c/s real, 8696K c/s virtual
Only one salt: 7435K c/s real, 7432K c/s virtual
Benchmarking: dynamic_1015 md5(md5($p.$u).$s) [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics
480x4x3]... (4xOMP) DONE
Many salts: 26749K c/s real, 7654K c/s virtual
Only one salt: 16951K c/s real, 6915K c/s virtual
So even non-OMP 'unstable', 1015 should much faster than postgres format, on
any reasonable build, simply due to SSE2
Jim.
From: magnum Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 15:12
>A caveat is that postgres supports OMP while dynamic does not, in unstable.
>
>Bleeding's dynamic does support OMP now though (thanks, Jim!), so this
alternative will become increasingly attractive as this support matures. In
bleeding I think we should start to get rid of thick formats that can be
done with dynamic (and/or a thin format) unless they are significantly
faster than dynamic.
>
>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.
