[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
