Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F4FB634.7040200@dilmun.ls.fi.upm.es>
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 18:47:32 +0100
From: Javier González del Tánago Liberal
 <jtanago@...mun.ls.fi.upm.es>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Best performance MPI vs OMP

Hi!
I've been trying John and I noticed a big difference in performance 
between MPI and OMP (LM, NTLM overall). These are the results:

- DES
     OMP
         Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... (48xOMP) DONE
         Many salts:    47087K c/s real, 982834 c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    21921K c/s real, 457370 c/s virtual
     MPI
         Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... (48xMPI) DONE
         Many salts:    50263K c/s real, 50263K c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    48422K c/s real, 48422K c/s virtual

- LM
     OMP
         Benchmarking: LM DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... (48xOMP) DONE
         Raw:    39714K c/s real, 828600 c/s virtual
     MPI
         Benchmarking: LM DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... (48xMPI) DONE
         Raw:    684363K c/s real, 677587K c/s virtual

- NETHALFLM
     OMP
         Benchmarking: HalfLM C/R DES [nethalflm]... (48xOMP) DONE
         Many salts:    29949K c/s real, 647146 c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    1622K c/s real, 262564 c/s virtual
     MPI
         Benchmarking: HalfLM C/R DES [nethalflm]... (48xMPI) DONE
         Many salts:    52215K c/s real, 52215K c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    26010K c/s real, 26010K c/s virtual

- NETLM
     OMP
         Benchmarking: LM C/R DES [netlm]... (48xOMP) DONE
         Many salts:    28550K c/s real, 647123 c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    857480 c/s real, 231109 c/s virtual
     MPI
         Benchmarking: LM C/R DES [netlm]... (48xMPI) DONE
         Many salts:    52331K c/s real, 51813K c/s virtual
         Only one salt:    17337K c/s real, 17337K c/s virtual

Is that normal? I suppose that in the same machine, the OMP 
implementation should work faster, isn't?


Relevant Information:
24 physical/48 logical processor:
    model name    : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4807  @ 1.87GHz
    cache size    : 18432 KB
    cpu cores    : 6
    flags        : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge 
mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe 
syscall nx pdpe1gb rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts rep_good 
nopl xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor 
ds_cpl vmx smx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm pcid dca sse4_1 sse4_2 
x2apic popcnt aes lahf_lm arat dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid

John the Ripper password cracker, ver: 1.7.9-jumbo-5_mpi+omp [linux-x86-64]
Debian Wheezy


-- 
-------------------------------------
Javier González del Tánago Liberal
-------------------------------------
e-mail: jtanago@...mun.ls.fi.upm.es
-------------------------------------
CriptoLab. Despacho 6305.
Facultad de Informática.
Campus de Montegancedo S/N
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid.
Boadilla del Monte. Madrid (Spain)
-------------------------------------



Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (2912 bytes)

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.