Openwall GNU/*/Linux - a small security-enhanced Linux distro for servers
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2015 10:31:13 +0800
From: Kai Zhao <loverszhao@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: BENCHMARK_LENGTH bugs

On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 1:30 AM, magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote:
> On 2015-08-20 19:13, Kai Zhao wrote:
>> $ ../john --test --format=7z
>>
>> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
>> Benchmarking: 7z, 7-Zip (512K iterations) [SHA256 AES 32/64]... (8xOMP)
>> DONE
>> Speed for cost 1 (iteration count) of 524288
>> Many salts: 3056 c/s real, 3034 c/s virtual
>> Only one salt: 18.0 c/s real, 18.1 c/s virtual
>
>
> 3056/18 = 169.78x faster. Definitely nothing to complain about.
>
>> $ ../john --test --format=dominosec8
>>
>> Will run 8 OpenMP threads
>> Benchmarking: dominosec8, Lotus Notes/Domino 8 [8/64]... (8xOMP) DONE
>> Warning: "Many salts" test limited: 1/256
>> Many salts: 3471 c/s real, 435 c/s virtual
>> Only one salt: 3303 c/s real, 416 c/s virtual
>
>
> 3471/3303 = 1.05x so a 5% speedup. I'm not sure we should complain even
> here.
>
> I think you should complain if speedup is less than 1-2%. Also, I'm not sure
> you should FAIL but maybe just "Warning: ..." like with alignment issues.
> Solar?
>

Is there any relation between "slow" and "the speedup from 'Only one salt'
to 'Many salts' " ?


Thanks,

Kai

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Your e-mail address:

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux - Powered by OpenVZ