[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:32:53 -0800
From: "Alain Espinosa" <alainesp@...il.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: NTLM patch performance
On 1/13/07, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> You've made sure that not a single hash got cracked during those 10
> minutes, correct?
Correct
> > Program 1 hash 10 hash
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > john_v1.7 nt_patch 1244K 1181K
>
> The number for 10 hashes is JtR's reported effective c/s divided by 10,
> correct?
Correct
> > ppa_v1.70 4370K 4600K
> > saminside_v2.5.7.1 11360K 5255K
>
> ...and what are the numbers for Simon's MMX/SSE2-enhanced NTLM support
> patch? I'd expect something like 5000K.
benchmark: 4800K
In fact i make some improve in the NT patch (witch C code) that benchmark 5100K.
I send this code to Simon. This means that sse2 code its 4 times
slower that C code and dont help much. Searching in "Intel(r)
Pentium(r) 4 Processor Optimization" find that mmx and sse2 code
execute in parallel. We can make this:
...........................
one sse2 intruction
one mmx instruction
one sse2 intruction
one mmx instruction
...............................
and we can compute 6 words in parallel.
alain
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail john-users-unsubscribe@...ts.openwall.com and reply
to the automated confirmation request that will be sent to you.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux -
Powered by OpenVZ
