[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
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.
