[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <F0C96E38-CCB5-4777-A994-F7FDEFD31745@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 06:28:17 -0700
From: Fred Wang <waffle.contest@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Judy array
On Sep 14, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> The addition of source() method for raw-md5 helps a lot. Without it,
> and without the copy-on-write avoidance in cracker.c, I couldn't run
> 8 processes on this machine without it getting into swap. Perhaps we
> should add source() to more formats.
So, given the existing implementation does not lend it self well to large-scale (read: large unsolved lists) processing, and the current leaning away from tightly-coupled multiprocessing, is my approach something the John developers are interested in?
I can certainly pull bits of my code into John, integrate it, and give you something to try. I continue to suggest, however, that moving to a threaded mode, rather than fork, would be a far better performance overall.
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.
