Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2012 05:39:58 +0200 From: Lukas Odzioba <lukas.odzioba@...il.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: raw-sha256-cuda (was: [PATCH] integrate psk-crack (from ike-scan) into john.) 2012/7/8 Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>: > 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 After some digging I found a bit better code 16.5M (gtx 460) from april. I'll test it and if it works we might want it in repo. Lukas
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.