[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:43:53 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: raw-sha256-cuda (was: [PATCH] integrate psk-crack (from ike-scan) into john.)
On Sat, Jul 07, 2012 at 07:19:30PM +0200, Lukas Odzioba wrote:
> Just ~8M:
> ukasz@...l:~/current-magnum/ukasz-jumbo/src$ ../run/john -test
> -fo=raw-sha256-cuda
> Benchmarking: raw-sha256-cuda [SHA256]... DONE
> Raw: 7831K c/s real, 7754K c/s virtual
>
> 6.5M on gtx460
>
> But on wiki there is info about 10k version of this patch, and I am
> absolutely sure that I was working on it this year.
> I must dig through my hdd to find a proper code.
>
> Anyway 10M or even 15M is still slow.
Yes, it's weird that your raw SHA-256 code is so slow. It doesn't even
hit the formats interface and CPU to GPU transfers bottleneck. IIRC,
myrice's SHA-512 code performed faster even with a similarly large
PLAINTEXT_LENGTH.
BTW, "raw-sha256-cuda [SHA256]" suggests that you're using a code
revision different from what's in magnum-jumbo, which has:
#ifdef SHA256
#define FORMAT_LABEL "raw-sha256-cuda"
#define FORMAT_NAME "Raw SHA-256"
...
#endif
#define ALGORITHM_NAME "CUDA, unreliable, may miss guesses"
And we need to actually make it reliable, so that we can remove the
"unreliable" notice.
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.
