Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 06:48:20 -0900 From: Royce Williams <royce@...ho.org> To: john-dev <john-dev@...ts.openwall.com> Subject: Re: descrypt speed On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Royce Williams <royce@...ho.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:08 PM, Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:59 AM, Sayantan Datta <std2048@...il.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 3:32 AM, Royce Williams <royce@...ho.org> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Royce, magnum, >>> >>> If you are interested, you can test the new revision of descrypt-opencl on >>> 970, 980 and 290X. There are three kernels and you can select them by >>> changing the parameters HARDCODE_SALT and FULL_UNROLL in >>> opencl_DES_hst_dev_shared.h. Setting (1,1) gives you the fastest kernel but >>> takes very long to compile, however subsequent runs should compile much >>> quicker as pre-compiled kernels(saved to the disk from the prior runs) are >>> used. Setting (1,0) gives slower speed but faster compilation time. Setting >>> (0,0) is the slowest but compilation is quickest. Also do not fork on same >>> system when HARDCODE_SALT is 1. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sayantan >> >> Actually, fork may be used with HARDCODE_SALT =1 but at most 2 threads, >> anything more than that is wasteful and you may need ton of RAM. Even with >> --fork == 2, I think you should have at least 8GB RAM. Another problem we >> currently have when using fork is that kernels are compiled n times for n >> threads which is unnecessary. However we can trick that by using --fork=1 to >> compile all kernels and then restart using --fork=2. >> >> Some performance Numbers using --fork = 2, HARCODE_SALT=1, FULL_UNROLL=1, >> 124 passwords and 122 salts, GPU: 7970(925Mhz core, 1375Mhz memory) >> >> 2 0g 0:00:05:07 3/3 0g/s 749774p/s 91400Kc/s 92900KC/s GPU:61°C util:97% >> fan:27% scprugas..myremy26 >> 1 0g 0:00:05:07 3/3 0g/s 749756p/s 91398Kc/s 92898KC/s GPU:61°C util:97% >> fan:27% 339gmh..8jfu44 >> >> Performance with --fork=1 >> 0g 0:00:04:25 3/3 0g/s 1324Kp/s 161247Kc/s 163891KC/s GPU:60°C util:87% >> fan:27% srusuu..07pvjy > > Thanks for the opportunity to test! > > Here are my results of "--test --format=descrypt-opencl" for a GTX 970 > SC (factory overclocked to 1316 MHz): > > First, a baseline - performance using magnumripper from a couple of months ago: > > Many salts: 46137K c/s real, 45680K c/s virtual > Only one salt: 25700K c/s real, 25700K c/s virtual > > > Using fb0b9383d6 magnumripper from today, for > (HARDCODE_SALT,FULL_UNROLL) values: > > (0,0) > > Many salts: 77345K c/s real, 77345K c/s virtual > Only one salt: 35298K c/s real, 35298K c/s virtual > > (1,0) > > Many salts: 77864K c/s real, 78643K c/s virtual > Only one salt: 34952K c/s real, 34952K c/s virtual > > (1,1) > > Many salts: 169869K c/s real, 169869K c/s virtual > Only one salt: 47710K c/s real, 48192K c/s virtual And here are some (1,1) single-GPU result against the later commit (65fd39cee8): Many salts: 171966K c/s real, 171966K c/s virtual Only one salt: 40489K c/s real, 40894K c/s virtual Many salts: 170393K c/s real, 170393K c/s virtual Only one salt: 41008K c/s real, 41008K c/s virtual Many salts: 170917K c/s real, 169225K c/s virtual Only one salt: 40894K c/s real, 40894K c/s virtual Many salts: 174935K c/s real, 178469K c/s virtual Only one salt: 41008K c/s real, 40606K c/s virtual Many salts: 171966K c/s real, 170263K c/s virtual Only one salt: 40489K c/s real, 40894K c/s virtual Many salts up slightly (but within normal variation?), and one-salt performance is down ~18% from previous - but still much better than before this work. :-) Royce
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.