Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:28:17 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: larger bitmaps and hash tables Fred, magnum, all - I am trying to stop the mess in the "Judy array" thread by starting separate threads for the various related topics that come up. Please help me with this by also using per-topic threads. Attached are two patches - john-huge-largehash.diff is preparing us for larger bitmaps and possibly hash tables and cleaning up our use of integer types a little bit in general (I think we should commit this one), and john-huge-largehash-plus1.diff increases the size of the largest bitmap for raw-md5 by a factor of 2 (and breaks other formats). Previously, my best speed for Fred's testcase on 2x E5420 was: real 0m55.630s user 4m7.385s sys 0m16.687s With these two patches, I am getting: real 0m53.729s user 3m36.475s sys 0m16.151s That's still with PASSWORD_HASH_SHR at 0, as I set it in previous patches (in the "Judy array" thread). With SHR=1: real 0m52.976s user 3m39.218s sys 0m16.227s With SHR=2: real 0m54.221s user 3m44.508s sys 0m19.503s So maybe we should in fact increase our largest bitmap size, and at the same time use larger SHR (to keep the largest hash table from increasing). To beat Fred's reported speed, we need to get below: 47*233/250 = 43.8 seconds adjusted for CPU clock rate difference. Of course, we'd still be using far more RAM than MDXfind did in that test. Alexander View attachment "john-huge-largehash.diff" of type "text/plain" (2399 bytes) View attachment "john-huge-largehash-plus1.diff" of type "text/plain" (2477 bytes)
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.