[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKGDhHUETXiYu2Mso0WHQvSnKHTrxfYtcQByijUBPX0PkgoZ9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 23:02:02 +0200
From: Agnieszka Bielec <bielecagnieszka8@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: [GSoC] John the Ripper support for PHC finalists
2015-04-25 20:52 GMT+02:00 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 08:41:54PM +0200, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
>> on well with AVX2 I receive results:
>>
>> a@...l:~/jtr2/run$ ./john --test --format=pomelo --cost=0:0,0:0
>> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
>> Benchmarking: POMELO, Generic pomelo [AVX2]... (8xOMP) DONE
>> Speed for cost 1 (N) of 0, cost 2 (r) of 0
>> Many salts: 1704K c/s real, 213274 c/s virtual
>> Only one salt: 1055K c/s real, 132053 c/s virtual
>>
>> the difference is biggest for 0,0 costs also for 2,0 and 0,2 is a
>> difference of 24% and 17%
>> at this moment I don't know why this happens
>
> This suggests a bug in the benchmark. Where do the salts for the "many
> salts" benchmark come from?
>
> set_key() in pomelo_fmt_plug.c doesn't look like it'd be that slow.
>
> Please investigate.
yes, there is a bug but in my code, I modified bench.c to generate
random keys and it seems that it takes so much time, for the CPU tests
I must remove this modification
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.
