Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 19:19:45 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: 1.7.9-jumbo On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 06:48:33PM +0400, Solar Designer wrote: > Minimum: 0.81602 real, 0.81602 virtual ... > Also, someone could want to identify the format that became 18% slower > and see if this is reproducible and if it can be avoided (in a future > version). It's CRC-32. On 1.7.8-jumbo-8 we had: Benchmarking: CRC-32 [32/64]... DONE Many salts: 63225K c/s real, 63225K c/s virtual Only one salt: 28983K c/s real, 28696K c/s virtual 1.7.9-jumbo-5 gives only: Benchmarking: CRC-32 [32/64]... DONE Many salts: 51593K c/s real, 51593K c/s virtual Only one salt: 27557K c/s real, 27557K c/s virtual (same machine, same compiler, same make target, no load). With CRC-32 excluded, the minimum improves to: Minimum: 0.87716 real, 0.87718 virtual and now it's NTLM, which is worrisome. Old: Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE Raw: 26734K c/s real, 26469K c/s virtual New: Benchmarking: NT MD4 [128/128 X2 SSE2-16]... DONE Raw: 23450K c/s real, 23218K c/s virtual Looks bad to me. Unlike CRC-32, NTLM's performance actually matters. And yes, this is reproduced on my second pair of benchmark runs as well. With NTLM excluded as well, the new minimum is: Minimum: 0.94607 real, 0.94937 virtual And it is for "dynamic_10: md5($s.md5($s.$p)) :Many salts", which I don't care much about. And it's only 5%. Can someone look into the NTLM performance regression? And maybe into others as well, but NTLM is the important one. We gained NT2, which is slightly faster: Benchmarking: NT v2 [SSE2i 12x]... DONE Raw: 25731K c/s real, 25731K c/s virtual but still slower than what NT used to achieve in 1.7.8-jumbo-8. And I am not familiar with other possible differences between these two (e.g., are they the same or different in handling of non-ASCII)? 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.