Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:23:55 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: FMT_OMP_BAD Kai, magnum - Kai - you tend to over-quote. Please try to quote relevant context only. On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 09:35:32PM +0800, Kai Zhao wrote: > There are some dynamic formats below 4.0 or 7.0. Other than dynamic > formats, there are 38 formats below 4.0 and 96 formats below 7.0. They > are in the attached .txt file. With "Only one salt" lines removed (which didn't correspond to unique formats anyway), there are 19 formats below 4.0 and 55 below 7.0. > What I need is to add FAST_FORMATS_OMP > for the 38 formats which below 4.0, and add FMT_OMP_BAD for the > 96 formats which below 7.0 ? For 19 and 55, yes, with some exceptions: Sybase-PROP is being discussed separately, see postings on it yesterday. We should fix it to scale better. wpapsk is in there by mistake. It's a slow format that should show good OpenMP scaling, and it does when I test it now: [solar@...er run]$ OMP_NUM_THREADS=1 ./john-omp -test -form=wpapsk Warning: OpenMP is disabled; a non-OpenMP build may be faster Benchmarking: wpapsk, WPA/WPA2 PSK [PBKDF2-SHA1 128/128 AVX 4x]... DONE Raw: 1308 c/s real, 1308 c/s virtual [solar@...er run]$ OMP_NUM_THREADS=10 ./john-omp -test -form=wpapsk Will run 10 OpenMP threads Benchmarking: wpapsk, WPA/WPA2 PSK [PBKDF2-SHA1 128/128 AVX 4x]... (10xOMP) DONE Raw: 11560 c/s real, 1154 c/s virtual There must have been some glitch during my benchmarks causing wpapsk to appear to scale poorly. It is weird that Raw-SHA1 and Raw-SHA1-ng would be treated differently, even though they are in fact on different sides of the 4.0 threshold: Ratio: 3.13780 real, 0.31346 virtual Raw-SHA1:Raw Ratio: 4.45613 real, 0.46748 virtual Raw-SHA1-ng, (pwlen <= 15):Raw I've just confirmed this with some benchmarks I ran. The most important difference between these two is that -ng is limited to handling passwords of up to 15 characters long only, which allows it to run slightly faster. I'm unsure whether we want to add the compile-time default for OpenMP support into the mix as well or not. I think our options are: disable OpenMP by default only for Raw-SHA1 (as per the 4.0 threshold) or for both Raw-SHA1 and Raw-SHA1-ng (to treat them the same). I think I'd prefer us to do the latter. Another reason to treat them the same is that I suspect the better performance of -ng would be less profound when running on a currently typical end-user machine with 4 physical cores and 8 logical CPUs. (We may confirm this.) I'd like magnum's comments on this. 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.