[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100307212505.GB11802@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 00:25:05 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Feedback on the generic crypt(3) patch
On Sat, Mar 06, 2010 at 02:07:36PM +0100, Magnum, P.I. wrote:
> Benchmarking: Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2-16]... DONE
> Many salts: 4504K c/s real, 4563K c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 3884K c/s real, 3884K c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) native (using DES) [OS/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 421162 c/s real, 425416 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 417396 c/s real, 417396 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [32/64 X2]... DONE
> Raw: 20248 c/s real, 20640 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) native (using MD5) [OS/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 8061 c/s real, 8118 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 8087 c/s real, 8087 c/s virtual
You have an unusually fast CPU - perhaps overclocked? I'd appreciate it
if you run a JtR benchmark (with unmodified code) and submit your
results to the wiki:
http://openwall.info/wiki/john/benchmarks
As to the differences between JtR's and your system's code, these look
reasonable to me.
> Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) native (using SHA-256) [OS/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 382 c/s real, 388 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 397 c/s real, 398 c/s virtual
>
> Benchmarking: generic crypt(3) native (using SHA-512) [OS/64]... DONE
> Many salts: 464 c/s real, 465 c/s virtual
> Only one salt: 465 c/s real, 466 c/s virtual
This also looks reasonable.
"Many salts" should be the same as "only one salt", though, but I assume
that your system was under some load, which could have caused the
differences in favor of "only one salt" here.
Thanks,
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.
