[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+EaD-aOwkwTheviK8cMA3MEmTs=sL4tc9C5fsMJk9dtWW7aVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2013 22:17:38 +0200
From: Katja Malvoni <kmalvoni@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Parallella: bcrypt
On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Katja Malvoni <kmalvoni@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>wrote:
>
>> [..]
>
> Oh, these times are much better than what you reported before. IIRC,
>> previously we were unable to get much better than 30 ms - and now you're
>> saying you're down to 20 ms already, which means almost 50 c/s. Your
>> 20.7 ms should give us 773 c/s on 16-core Epiphany, which is roughly the
>> speed of one modern x86 CPU core - but at much lower power usage. The
>> 64-core Epiphany is thus comparable to Core 2 Quad from a few years ago -
>> but again, at much lower power usage.
>
>
> I haven't realised that I never reported those, I'm sorry about that. This
> improvement happened when I changed Epiphany code so that it can be
> integrated in JtR. Most of it comes from returning result in BF_binary
> instead of returning much bigger char array.
>
> [...]
>
>
Oh, I made a mistake - execution time of 20 ms doesn't include data
transfers, it's only computation and waiting for cores to signal done. With
data transfers included (loading *.srec files on cores, transferring key
and salt and starting the cores) it's 85.76 ms, 2246.917 ms and 8781.541
ms.
Katja
Content of type "text/html" skipped
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.
