Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 09:10:17 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: sha256 format patches On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 11:07:07PM +0200, ?ukasz Odzioba wrote: > Finally i've got something faster than 9600m, it is 9800GT. Still > slower than Alexander's 8800GTS 512 but for the next few weeks should > be enought. Sounds fine. > For sha256cuda slow i've got ~11k c/s (8800gts - 16k c/s). > I found bug in my phpasscuda code, i was getting wrong results, and > many weird things because of to restrictive max_registers limit. After > two days of tracking this bug code went messy, so I need to clean it > up before uploading on wiki. That's curious. Thank you for sharing this info. I guess, this might also be what caused the false positive in my testing of the SHA-256 "slow" patch. (I think the correct output was left somewhere in memory from a test.) > As zero revision sha256cuda patch performance is poor, but it should > be easy to double it. > Currently it is about 30k c/s of phpass $P$9. If it's for phpass, then why do you call it sha256cuda? Is that just an error in your posting above? The "9" means 2048 iterations, so your 30k c/s means 60 million iterations of the MD5 compression function per second. This is reasonable for a low-end/old GPU, although as you correctly say there's a lot of room for improvement. Please upload your phpass code to the wiki soon! > oclHashcat+ can do 135k c/s on faster 8800GTS 512, so there is much to be done. 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.