[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 00:15:50 +0800
From: myrice <qqlddg@...il.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Result of hard core password generation on 7970
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1: with 2048*8, ~900M c/s, but with 2048*16, it is ~500M c/s
>
> OK, this is starting to become reasonable. Have you also tried values
> smaller than 2048*8?
>
Yes. With greater or smaller than 2048*8, the performance is not that good.
>> 1000: with 2048*8, ~45G = ~45M, with 2048*16, ~90G = ~ 45M
>
> I understand what you mean by "~45G = ~45M", but why "~90G = ~ 45M"?
> I think you're confused. At 1000 same-salt hashes, "90G" reported
> effective speed (combinations per second) means 90M hashes computed per
> second. max_keys_per_crypt is not part of that equation.
>
> (I definitely need to improve speed reporting to avoid such confusion.)
>
Sorry, my mistake, it should be ~90G=~90M
Thanks
myrice
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.
