[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH8erejm0CpM54U04DXe0H99ajS5crBEqRVPtDM0WxD=Wp34mQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2023 00:21:12 -0300
From: Rodrigo s <rodrigozanattasilva@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: John the Ripper in the cloud update 2023/02
Hi Alexander.
Really thanks for your help! I am really happy to say that it works now.
All I did was exactly what that link said
<https://towardsthecloud.com/amazon-ec2-requested-more-vcpu-capacity> to
do. I put a random number like 80. After a day the AWS accepted.
Summary of service quota(s) requested for increase:
[US East (Northern Virginia)]: EC2 Instances / nu.general (All
Standard (A, C, D, H, I, M, R, T, Z) instances), New Limit = 80
Now... I can't say if it was what you did to solve the problem. But, after
I try again, using the same default configuration, it works without any
problem and I have the Linux console. I can learn more and understand how
all of it works.
But I am a little disappointed. I thought it could be extremely faster than
what I can do myself on my computer. In my test (trying a random format I
was using), it was doing about 12.555KC/s in each thread, so 12,5k *2 =
25KC/S. In my computer the same operation make 4,3KC/s in 12 threads or
about 50KC/S
Because we can easily "build" a new computer in AWS, I thought this bundle
could have the best possible configuration. What really makes the program
work faster? I always have this question in my mind. So, with AWS I could
test it.
What do you think about it? Is there a cheap configuration in AWS? Or to it
work, I just need to pay for the most expensive options in AWS? There is no
shortcut for it?
I really would like to help with this AWS project. Because I am still a
noob, I can just think about how to do it. But I can study if you say that
what I show makes sense :)
Em seg., 6 de mar. de 2023 às 21:59, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
escreveu:
> On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:55:40AM +0100, Solar Designer wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 01:10:23AM +0100, Solar Designer wrote:
> > > I'll also consider changing the default instance type for this product,
> > > perhaps to c6i.large, which should barely fit the defaults as far as I
> > > can see. I'd appreciate it if you test and confirm or disprove that.
> >
> > Actually, looks like c6i.2xlarge should also fit the defaults - can you
> > test that one?
>
> Oops, I meant c6i.xlarge without the "2" in there. Sorry. As far as I
> see, it's up to 5 vCPUs on those instance types by default, and xlarge
> means 4 vCPUs, so should fit.
>
> 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.
