Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:30:30 +0400 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: ICC performance regression On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:12:19AM +0200, magnum wrote: > Old pre-built files, icc 12.1.4: [...] > Benchmarking: FreeBSD MD5 [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... DONE > Raw: 39204 c/s real, 39204 c/s virtual [...] > gcc 4.7.2, -native target: [...] > Benchmarking: crypt-MD5 [128/128 AVX intrinsics 12x]... DONE > Raw: 36936 c/s real, 36936 c/s virtual This is pretty significant difference in favor of old icc, and not all CPUs have AVX, so I think we should simply continue to use old icc to prebuild the files. Why the name discrepancy, though? There was no intent to rename this format to crypt-MD5, was there? If I rename it, I'll use md5crypt, including in the printed name. The performance differences for fast hashes are less important due to the way the number of additional successful cracks per unit of time diminishes with more candidate passwords having already been tested. 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.