[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150916025721.GA8803@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:57:21 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: larger bitmaps and hash tables
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 05:28:17AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote:
> With SHR=1:
>
> real 0m52.976s
> user 3m39.218s
> sys 0m16.227s
Another doubling of bitmap size while keeping the hash table size same:
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SIZE_6 0x20000000
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SHR 2
real 0m50.480s
user 3m19.678s
sys 0m17.056s
And one more:
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SIZE_6 0x40000000
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SHR 3
real 0m50.080s
user 3m9.933s
sys 0m18.377s
And one more:
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SIZE_6 0x80000000
#define PASSWORD_HASH_SHR 4
real 0m50.453s
user 3m7.901s
sys 0m20.535s
Somehow a regression, and system time increase. Maybe the page table
entries became too large to fit in a cache. (And we were having mostly
TLB misses anyway.) Maybe use of "huge pages" for the bitmap and the
hash table would help.
BTW, the actual cracking takes just 21 to 23 seconds (varies across the
8 processes), meaning that the loading is 27 seconds. We should be able
to optimize the loading somewhat.
To make these experiments easier, I adjusted the *_6() hash functions to
use (PASSWORD_HASH_SIZE_6 - 1) for the mask. Perhaps we should make
this standard practice.
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.
