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.