Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 22:47:09 +0000
From: yungai <>
Subject: resuming with more processes then before (was: memory issues: john
 is eating it all (descrypt-opencl))

Solar Designer:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 10:00:18PM +0000, yungai wrote:
>> I'm running a similar setup (--fork=2 on a 7990).
>> After reading your post I'm wondering if I should run --fork=8 instead? :)
> Yes, for descrypt-opencl and lotus5-opencl (just committed), --fork=8 is
> optimal for a 7990.  I ran that in the contest too.
> I must admit that I crashed a 4x7990 machine by lotus5-opencl with
> --fork=32, though.  There's some kind of limit in X configuration or/and
> AMD driver.  But with just one 7990, --fork=8 works fine for me and
> provides a boost for these two formats I mentioned.
> For md5crypt-opencl, --fork=4 on 7990 is about 10% faster than --fork=2,
> but YMMV.

I think I did read that question before but can't recall the answer and
don't know which search keyword to use.

Can I restore with --fork=8 even if I was running with --fork=2 till now
without loosing past work?

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.