[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8c1d07c4bac1994f08eaf6f0e1ed797c@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 09:36:55 +0100
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Reload pot file
On 2014-03-10 21:48, magnum wrote:
> I still see one case of performance hit: If I attack the Gawker dataset
> starting with an empty pot file and running single mode, the first
> couple of minutes have a few occasions with up to 3.8 seconds of sync.
> But on the other hand, tens of thousands of passwords are removed in
> that time and if it wasn't for the fact salts are so heavily reused we'd
> got a great win from removed salts. So I think this should default to
> being active with no special options.
The major part of total sync time in the Gawker test described above was
finding the salt using a full scan. It turned out I could simply keep
the salt_hash table that loader uses after adding code in
crk_remove_salt() to update it when needed. This again decreased sync
times to <10 ms, wall clock total.
Keeping that hash table or not might be a --save-memory candidate.
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.
