Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2015 09:45:51 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Judy array On 2015-09-15 03:03, Solar Designer wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:28:08PM -0700, Fred Wang wrote: >> I use a 10-year-old Dell 2950 as my test environment, precisely because it uses slower memory, and more easily shows improvements. For my "standard" test case (MD5, 29 million hashes, a ~13 million entry dictionary, and best64 rules, yielding about 1 billion hash attempts to find about 1.7 million solutions) >> >> hashcat 3 minute 54 seconds >> mdxfind 1 minute 15 seconds (Judy only) >> mdxfind 47 seconds (Current code, Bloom filter + Judy) > magnum - testing this stuff, I see that pot sync is a major bottleneck. Does it look like pot sync is slower than processing "our own" cracks? It shouldn't, it uses all the same gears in the box. Of course, with -fork=8 it will spend 8x more time processing cracks, but in real-life it's not a problem. This is a contrived test. > Since this is your feature, you might want to benchmark and optimize it > some more, or/and maybe we just want it disabled by default when cracking > saltless hashes. As it is, it's just not able to handle Fred's "about > 1.7 million solutions" in a minute - it takes several minutes to process > those guesses, so it becomes the primary bottleneck for the whole run. I'll verify that we don't have some regression in there, I did spend a lot of time optimizing it. 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.