[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <41f3d4edd28bf846d9146c6df19e8c9f@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 21:37:55 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Judy array
On 2015-09-15 17:24, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 09:53:52AM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> You are using the default SALT_HASH_LOG of 12, right? You load a
>> thousand times more salts than that number is really good for. Please
>> try bumping it to 22 for the case of 2 million hashes. This will speed
>> up things significantly, not just pot sync.
>>
>> In fact we might want to bump that default a bit (at least in Jumbo). I
>> think we can't make it variable, that would hurt performance.
>
> We should do something about SALT_HASH_LOG next, yes. IIRC, the reason
> why I kept it at 12 was specifically not to waste any memory when
> cracking descrypt hashes. Perhaps we need to use a higher default now.
Do you have a suggestion for a new default? Loading tens of millions of
salts isn't something you normally do anyway. What is the total memory
impact of bumping it to eg. 20?
Or... what would the impact be for simply making it a global variable?
Some hash/index calculations would become less optimized but perhaps it
wouldn't harm that much?
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.
