[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 02:44:52 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Interleaving of intrinsics
On 2015-06-22 21:48, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 09:40:55PM +0200, magnum wrote:
>> As Lei wrote, all speeds for PBKDB2-HMAC
>
> Where? I must have missed that.
It was clearly stated (although he omitted number of iterations) but
PBKDF2-HMAC-MD4/5 formats are so unintuitive your brain might have
refused to take it in :-)
>> (yes, even MD4 and MD5). All of
>> them are c/s for 1000 iterations. So 737882 c/s corresponds to something
>> like 737882 * 2002 = 1.4G hashes per second. I'm not sure that makes
>> sense on a MIC but that's what it should mean.
>
> Oh. It makes sense, yes. And it was worthy of benchmarking and
> considering for tuning of the interleaving factors, then.
That's what I thought when adding pbkdf2-hmac-md4 which is a totally
useless format otherwise, not likely used anywhere IRL. We can now
benchmark MD4 figures without bottlenecks. The format was obviously very
trivial to add, more or less cp & sed. BTW I have added both of these
formats for OpenCL too, for the same reasons. Super trivial, and great
for benchmarking the raw hash code.
>> My laptop figure for
>> single core MD4 is 33424 which means about 67M hashes/s, and that does
>> make sense.
>
> Are the speeds for your laptop also for PBKDF2-HMAC at 1000 iterations?
Sure. The tables are created by latest "testparas.pl" script in the src
directory. BTW maybe we should add test vectors with 499 iterations...
that way you could actually read the c/s figures as "K hash/s" :-)
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.
