Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 17:58:37 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: bcrypt BF_X2=3 is not always best On Thu, Dec 25, 2014 at 05:14:59AM +0300, Solar Designer wrote: > Here's an example, off Twitter: > > <@will_sargent> @solardiz "--test --format=bcrypt" BF_X2=1 is 8625,8784,8640,8928,8856,8784. BF_X2=3 is 8208,8233,8208,8424,8424,8424,8340,8233,8233,8258. > > This is on i7-5820K, 3.3+ GHz, running 12 threads on 6 cores, JtR built > with gcc 4.8.2-19ubuntu1 per @will_sargent's entry on: > > http://openwall.info/wiki/john/benchmarks More stable speeds on the same machine: <@will_sargent> @solardiz Running in single user mode, CrashplanEngine killed. 8447, 8532, 8447, 8447, 8424. <@will_sargent> @solardiz single user mode, B2_X2=1 yields 9000,8982,8910,9000,8910,8928,9000. So we have a ~5% performance regression by going BF_X2=3 on this machine. 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.