[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <537A89ED.5080103@bitmessage.ch>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:47:09 +0000
From: yungai <BM-2DBq3nJF7GXKr6Nk6EHzvxxGBec6gQn2NB@...message.ch>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: resuming with more processes then before (was: memory issues: john
is eating it all (descrypt-opencl))
Solar Designer:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:00:18PM +0000, yungai wrote:
>> I'm running a similar setup (--fork=2 on a 7990).
>> After reading your post I'm wondering if I should run --fork=8 instead? :)
>
> Yes, for descrypt-opencl and lotus5-opencl (just committed), --fork=8 is
> optimal for a 7990. I ran that in the contest too.
>
> I must admit that I crashed a 4x7990 machine by lotus5-opencl with
> --fork=32, though. There's some kind of limit in X configuration or/and
> AMD driver. But with just one 7990, --fork=8 works fine for me and
> provides a boost for these two formats I mentioned.
>
> For md5crypt-opencl, --fork=4 on 7990 is about 10% faster than --fork=2,
> but YMMV.
I think I did read that question before but can't recall the answer and
don't know which search keyword to use.
Can I restore with --fork=8 even if I was running with --fork=2 till now
without loosing past work?
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.
