Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:35:10 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: xsha512-cuda & xsha512-opencl testing myrice - On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 04:10:01PM +0800, myrice wrote: > Unfortunately, after lukas's work on bull, I cannot run my cuda format on it... It's weird, mscash2-cuda worked, but xsha512-cuda did not. I've just rebooted bull, and xsha512-cuda works now. BTW, xsha512-cuda produces nasty sound at maybe 5 KHz or so - is this the frequency of PCIe transfers or global memory accesses or something like that? > This is result under xsha512-opencl with incremental mode. Which incremental mode, exactly? This matters. If the incremental mode is not locked to a specific password length (e.g., just length 8), then there's some overhead early on to switch between lengths. For quick runs (like a few minutes), this overhead is significant. So you should be using -i=all8 (locked to length 8 only). Is this what you used? > Incremental mode on xsha512-opencl with 7970: > HashNum_SaltNum > 1_1 > guesses: 1 time: 0:00:00:06 DONE (Mon Jul 16 10:54:39 2012) c/s: 12838K 6 seconds is too little, but otherwise this is reasonable. > 100_100 > guesses: 6 time: 0:00:06:45 0.00% c/s: 48827K > > 10K_10K > guesses: 89 time: 0:00:03:00 0.00% c/s: 49944K OK. > 10K_100 > guesses: 279 time: 0:00:05:40 0.00% c/s: 2871M About 29M c/s raw hashing speed. The slowdown from 50M to 29M with 100 hashes/salt is not too bad. I was afraid it'd be worse. Yet there should be lots of room for improvement here. > 10K_1 > guesses: 5351 time: 0:00:03:43 0.00% c/s: 72953M Too many got cracked (over 50%). > 1M_1 > guesses: 47731 time: 0:00:03:56 0.00% c/s: 2707G I guess we'd achieve a similar speed on CPU (2.7M passwords/second). > 1M_1K > guesses: 4196 time: 0:00:04:41 0.00% c/s: 21220M 21M, quite reasonable and better than current CPU code. I guess this is the bottleneck of transfers of hashes from GPU to CPU, for get_hash*()? > 1M_1M > guesses: 50 time: 0:00:04:02 0.00% c/s: 51453K OK. Overall, the scaling with many hashes per salt is better than what I had expected for your code (since it was not subjected to such testing/tuning before), but it's not perfect. Thanks, 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.