[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2011 21:17:40 +0200
From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net>
To: "john-dev@...ts.openwall.com" <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com>
Subject: Re: ETA for incremental
<solar@...nwall.com>:
> In my testing, the ETAs are misleading:
>
> ...
>
> At this speed, this session is supposed to terminate in about 4 million
> years (if nothing gets cracked), which could probably be determined
> after just a few seconds of running (once the c/s rate is known).
> Rather than say that ETA is beyond some date in 2011, perhaps John
> should detect this typical case and say "ETA: never" or something like
> that? Also, where do the dates in 2011 come from? Some overflow bug?
Yes it may need some rework. It's calculated from percent done and time done (this is old code). It's not an overflow but at 0.00% it will show "best case" - it calculates ETA assuming an actual progress of 0.009%.
At first I muted ETA (for all modes) until we have 0.01% but I reverted that and put the '>' in there instead. Rest is pretty much the old code. Maybe that muting was better after all, especially for full Incremental. Very easy fix.
magnum
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.
