[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150622194841.GB18903@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 22:48:41 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Interleaving of intrinsics
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:40:55PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> As Lei wrote, all speeds for PBKDB2-HMAC
Where? I must have missed that.
> (yes, even MD4 and MD5). All of
> them are c/s for 1000 iterations. So 737882 c/s corresponds to something
> like 737882 * 2002 = 1.4G hashes per second. I'm not sure that makes
> sense on a MIC but that's what it should mean.
Oh. It makes sense, yes. And it was worthy of benchmarking and
considering for tuning of the interleaving factors, then.
> My laptop figure for
> single core MD4 is 33424 which means about 67M hashes/s, and that does
> make sense.
Are the speeds for your laptop also for PBKDF2-HMAC at 1000 iterations?
It looks like my comments didn't fully apply, then. Those benchmarks
make a lot more sense. It's just that the naming like md4-omp didn't
suggest that PBKDF2-HMAC was meant.
Alexander
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.
