[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:47:43 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Re: mmap()
On 2014-04-27 15:44, jfoug@....net wrote:
> From an offlist request. I thought this might be good information
> for the list, to see how cygwin, which is still limited to the diskIO
> constraints of Win32 (which SUCK) behaves. It does work with magnums
> mmap port (had to adjust some defines in the include section, but it
> was no big deal). I have no idea how real-world ready this code is
> at the moment. magnum has this in a separate tree in git, so I
> assume it is still being actively developed, and not ready for real
> world.
Actually I was planning to merge it as soon as we know Windows is
working. I presume all other targets have mmap().
> Testing with mmap:
> Loaded 1 password hash (Raw-MD5 [MD5 128/128 SSE2 12x])
> jucarius (u0-RawMD5)
> 1g 0:00:00:02 DONE (2014-04-27 08:09) 0.4452g/s 3320Kp/s 3320Kc/s 3320KC/s 1616888..jucarius
>
> Testing with bleeding (no memory buf)
> 1g 0:00:00:04 DONE (2014-04-27 08:14) 0.2157g/s 1609Kp/s 1609Kc/s 1609KC/s 1616888..jucarius
>
> Testing with bleeding (memory buf large enough to hold entire file)
> 1g 0:00:00:01 DONE (2014-04-27 08:17) 0.5341g/s 3983Kp/s 3983Kc/s 3983KC/s 1616888..jucarius
Note that the last test should be done with the mmap version too because
the mmap-branch fills that array using the memory map and "mgetl()"
instead of fgetl(). So it will speed up the "array buffer" too!
> With rules: (Note, input hash busted, so the full rules would run)
>
> Testing with mmap:
> 0g 0:00:01:04 DONE (2014-04-27 08:21) 0g/s 1950Kp/s 1950Kc/s 1950KC/s Ddiinnkkoing..Jucariusing
> Testing with bleeding (no memory buf)
> 0g 0:00:03:56 DONE (2014-04-27 08:27) 0g/s 535200p/s 535200c/s 535200C/s Ddiinnkkoing..Jucariusing
> Testing with bleeding (memory buf large enough to hold entire file)
> 0g 0:00:00:51 DONE (2014-04-27 08:22) 0g/s 2479Kp/s 2479Kc/s 2479KC/s Ddiinnkkoing..Jucariusing
Same applies here.
Here are my latest test results. OSX has similar figures. All are from
attacking a single uncrackable NT hash with Rockyou. The "x4" means
--fork=4 and "+buf" means "-mem=0" for array buffer.
Linux rockyou +rules rockyoux4 +rulesx4
-------------+-----------+-----------+-----------+------------+--------------
bleeding 11475Kp/s 3161Kp/s 20488Kp/s 12441Kp/s
bleeding-buf 10625Kp/s 5864Kp/s 7828Kp/s 20139Kp/s
fgetl-sse 14202Kp/s 4004Kp/s 28688Kp/s 15314Kp/s
fgetl-sse+buf 10625Kp/s 5777Kp/s 5085Kp/s 20839Kp/s
mgetl 14344Kp/s 4484Kp/s 31014Kp/s 17084Kp/s
mgetl+buf n/a 5831Kp/s n/a 20866Kp/s
mgetl-sse 16117Kp/s 4445Kp/s 32789Kp/s 18375Kp/s
mgetl-sse+buf n/a 5841Kp/s n/a 21069Kp/s
The fgetl-sse is an experiment using same wordlist.c as in bleeding, but
with fgetl() using Atom's fgets-sse2 code. The mmap code is faster than
that. I'm experimenting with using SSE *with* mmap (not Atom's code) but
since most words are shorter than 16 bytes it seems to be better using
32-bit or even 8-bit stuff.
magnum
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.
