Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 23:52:36 +0200 From: magnum <rawsmooth@...dband.net> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Speed of jtr on your machine? On 2011-09-13 18:50, jfoug wrote: >> Then I should look at that. It 'should' give some signature that lists >> it >> was built using sse2 intrinsic functions. > > Here is what I see in a 32 bit intrinsic build (cygwin). Now, this is not > jumbo-5, but I did not think anything changed about how md5_gen is built, > since then. > > $ ../run/john -test -form=md5-gen > Benchmarking: md5_gen(0): md5($p) (raw-md5) [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... DONE > Raw: 9653K c/s > > > I will later check this on my pen drive linux-64 system, to see if there are > problems showing up there, which do not appear on this 32 bit build. It shows correctly when using md5_gen(0) but not when using thin raw-md5: $ ./john -fo:"md5_gen(0)" -test Benchmarking: md5_gen(0): md5($p) (raw-md5) [SSE2 16x4x2 (intr)]... DONE Raw: 13832K c/s real, 13832K c/s virtual $ ./john --format=raw-md5 --test Benchmarking: Raw MD5 [gen]... Using raw-md5 mode, by linking to md5_gen(0) functions DONE Raw: 13858K c/s real, 13858K c/s virtual This is simply because the format (rawMD5go_fmt_plug.c) says so: #define ALGORITHM_NAME "gen" It would be better if md5_gen replaced that. Perhaps it should when a thin format sets ALGORITHM_NAME to a null string? Back to topic, Bugtrace's performance figures are very low for some reason or the other. What's the output from -test -fo:"md5_gen(0)"? 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.