Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2012 15:15:06 -0400 From: <jfoug@....net> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: raw-sha1-ng reduced binary size ---- magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> wrote: > > That bug in the bleeding branch is fixed now (it did not affect > Jumbo-6). The memory footprint remains at 674 MB but the speed was even > better, Extra throughput is always good ;) The get_source() (likely soon to be called source) is something that should be high on the list. It does seem to improve performance (much more than I expected), on the HW I have been working with. And it certainly reduces memory footprint a lot, when working with a lot of hashes. > 15 seconds. So from these tests I suppose what we should really > do is write a get_source() for your format in the bleeding branch, > instead of reducing binary size. They are obviously mutually exclusive - > you can't reconstruct the ciphertext source from a reduced binary. > > magnum >
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.