Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 13:40:30 +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 04:55:45PM +0800, myrice wrote: > This time I set password length > 9 and here are some results to fix the above: "> 8" (9 or above) would have been enough. Not that this matters. > Incremental xsha512-opencl 7970 password length > 8 > 1_1 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:03:24 0.00% c/s: 14441K Just a bit faster than current CPU code. Limited by transfers of candidates from CPU to GPU, as expected. > 100_100 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:07 0.00% c/s: 48790K OK. > 10K_1 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:04:00 0.00% c/s: 122552M 12M passwords/second, probably limited by transfers of hashes from GPU to CPU, right? > 1M_1 > guesses: 0 time: 0:00:03:58 0.00% c/s: 2788G 2.7M passwords/second, probably limited by large hash table lookups on the host. Is this magnum-jumbo (without bitmaps) or bleeding (with bitmaps)? I'd expect better speed with bitmaps. Either way, you need to implement an equivalent of them on the GPU side. Not necessarily for this hash type (where having so many hashes/salt is not typical), but for saltless hashes mostly (where having millions of hashes and no salts is common). 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.