[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANWtx014V6CRfks3=9OGPYFWHENgft6MF9SBZBth9bTQQNY2Yw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 13:37:30 -0400
From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Splitting workload on multiple hosts
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:31 PM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 2014-08-04 16:44, Rich Rumble wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:50 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Basically the syntax for MPI with --node is the same as for --fork with
>>> --node. So these two examples are equivalent in terms of work space:
>>>
>>> ./john -fork=16 -node=1-16/10000 (...)
>>>
>>> mpirun -host=alpha,bravo -np 16 ./john -node=1-16/10000 (...)
>>>
>>> Since Fork is no good for Windows and i currently want to dumbforce
>> something. I don't have network connectivity to most of the hosts I'm
>> pooling, so I may have to go and use live CD's and use Fork after all, but
>> in linux. I am using node like the example, but I'm not sure it will work
>> on external modes as well as fork would.
>>
>
> The key space distribution is 100% identical whether you use fork, MPI or
> just manual instances of --node.
>
> magnum
>
Sorry to dredge this subject back up, I'm not convinced Fork is fully using
all 24 CPU's in my single machine to the best if it's ability, on an
"incremental" run I'm doing. Will some modes work better in fork than
others? I know certain algorithms do, and mine is one of them (raw-sha1). I
have a few (other)issues, one being the hashes I'm going after are enormous
and I can't fit them all in ram at once (HaveIBeenPwnd v2) so I've split
them up into 20 1Gb slices. Perhaps a new thread may be needed for the
incremental issue I'm not sure, but using -fork=24 seems to only see 6-8
threads of 100% util, and status updates are also between 6-8 when pressing
a key. So I have found I can load four 1Gb slices in ram (save-mem=2), and
run fork=6 on those. In doing that I appear to have some overlap, in that
some threads are being used twice for work, but I'm not 100% sure. But if I
stop one of the four runs, as soon as it's stopped one or two of the
remaining three start churning out passwords like crazy. I do not think
this is a problem fork/node are there to solve, but was curious if there
was a way to make sure work in cpu/threads 1-6 are only done by this john
instance, and work for the other john instance 1-6 are only done by
cpu/threads 7-12. Since I'm doing different work, I didn't think node would
be the answer for that, I figured the potential for overlap would be the
same even if I specified node=0-5 for each instance.
-rich
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.
