[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BAY105-F2279319843AF5CB7369548FDB60@phx.gbl>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 19:27:17 +0200
From: "Frank Dittrich" <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Performance comparison (was:Error while installing Jumbo Patch)
Arvind Sood wrote:
>Here you go
>
>[arvind@...alhost run]$ ./john --test
>Benchmarking: Traditional DES [64/64 BS MMX]... DONE
>Many salts: 643615 c/s real, 644902 c/s virtual
>Only one salt: 612672 c/s real, 612672 c/s virtual
[snipped performance, gcc, cpu, OS info ...]
Thanks.
>I MUST POINT OUT THAT THIS IS BEING DONE ON A VMWARE PARTITION.
>MY COMPANY HAS LIMITED HARDWARE WHICH IS WHY I AM DRIVING MYSELF
>SILLY WITH LINUX !!
Thanks for pointing this out.
>If you dont mind , could you follow up with an explanation of how
>you found all this information useful?
I just wanted to know what Pentium processor your system has
(/proc/cpuinfo), and how much performance is gained by using
an mmx-optimized version, compared to the non-mmx version from
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.openwall.john.user/663
(BTW: it didn't get into my inbox, I just found it on gmane)
Since the compiler version (and perhaps even the Linux kernel
version - at least the distinction 2.4 vs. 2.6) has an impact
on performance, I asked for this information as well.
Others also frequently asked for a performance overview
comparing different john versions, hardware platforms, ...
Because the output is from a VMware guest system, there might
be some differences compared to directly running john on a Linux
system, but the differences shouldn't be too large.
Frank
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.
