Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:24:02 -0700 From: RB <aoz.syn@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: DES BS + OMP improvements, MPI direction On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:36, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > It is unclear from what you wrote above whether having completed that > single set would be any better or not. You seem to imply that it would, > but this is not so obvious. I'm sorry - yes, I am implying that for a time-limited run, completing the largest number of passes and thereby minimizing that run's sparseness is, if not desirable (better), at least what the typical user is going to expect. >> It would be fascinating (but programmatically challenging) to >> have the implementation automatically switch approaches (or reduce >> working unit size) as timing for individual sets clears a given >> threshold. > > I previously proposed how to do something like that (and even better) in > the last paragraph of: > > http://www.openwall.com/lists/john-users/2005/11/21/2 Now I remember you linking that for me before; thanks for the repeated lesson. :) The range-splitting is certainly elegant and ideal, the devil would be making that approach light enough to scale reasonably for even relatively fast hashes. A full master/slave network model might be too much (which I'm certain you're aware of).
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.