[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150812215132.GA14344@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:51:32 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: PHC: Argon2 on GPU
On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 11:45:35PM +0200, magnum wrote:
> On 2015-08-12 18:32, Agnieszka Bielec wrote:
> >gws: 1024 3447 c/s 3447 rounds/s 297.022ms per
> >crypt_all()+
> >Local worksize (LWS) 64, global worksize (GWS) 1024
> >using different password for benchmarking
> >DONE
> >Speed for cost 1 (t) of 1, cost 2 (m) of 1500, cost 3 (l) of 1
> >Many salts: 2925 c/s real, 307200 c/s virtual
> >Only one salt: 2898 c/s real, 307200 c/s virtual
>
> The benchmark figures (last two lines) are the correct ones. If you set
> up auto-tune correctly, that speed should be similar to the benchmark.
> For some formats/situations this is hard to achieve and it's just
> cosmetic anyway.
magnum, do you have an explanation why the best benchmark result during
auto-tuning is usually substantially different from the final benchmark
in most of Agnieszka's formats? I'm fine with eventually dismissing it
as "hard to achieve" and "cosmetic anyway", but I'd like to understand
the cause first. Thanks!
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.
