Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:40:41 -0500 From: Rich Rumble <richrumble@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Fork=n On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > Rich, > That's not entirely true. I intentionally put the fork() call after the > hashes are loaded - so they were mostly shared between the child > processes. Then as passwords get cracked and individual copy-on-write > pages are modified, memory usage of the individual processes starts to > grow slowly. > > I don't know if Cygwin implements this about as well as typical > Unix-like systems do or not, though. > > How large did it get, specifically? And how did you measure? Maybe you > merely assumed that each process had its own copy of the data, whereas > in reality the data was mostly shared and you still had plenty of free > RAM (or rather RAM available and used for disk caching as it normally is)? 4Gb (roughly) > Or maybe you got a large percentage of passwords cracked in that run, > which explains why each process would have its own copy of many of the > pages. No this is immediate I retrieved these from WMIC just now starting a new run. (K is assumed e.g. 1072468K ) PageFileUsage PeakPageFileUsage PeakVirtualSize 1072468 1072468 1154318336 1072008 1072008 1142530048 1072008 1072008 1142530048 1072012 1072012 1142530048 PeakWorkingSetSize PrivatePageCount VirtualSize WorkingSetSize 1065464 1098207232 1154318336 1091035136 1064672 1097736192 1142530048 1090224128 1064620 1097736192 1142530048 1090170880 1064684 1097740288 1142530048 1090236416 Loaded 12264106 password hashes with 4096 different salts (Traditional DES [128/128 BS SSE2]) Remaining 12159811 password hashes with 4096 different salts > Thank you for bringing this up! I live to serve :) -rich
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.