Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:38:17 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: OMP vs. OpenCL performance On 2017-09-30 18:12, Scott I. Remick wrote: > On 09/29/2017 09:44 AM, Frank Dittrich wrote: >> Actually, john will provide that information : > > Ok here what I had gotten: > > ~/JohnTheRipper/run$ ./john --session=opencl > --format=PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512-opencl hash.txt > Device 0: GeForce GTX 750 > Using default input encoding: UTF-8 > Loaded 1 password hash (PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512-opencl, GRUB2 / OS X 10.8+ > [PBKDF2-SHA512 OpenCL]) > Cost 1 (iteration count) is 48543 for all loaded hashes > > So if the "48543" is what you thought would need to be over 500K to > account for the speed, then I suppose maybe there is indeed a > problem...? Currently been running 1 day, 13h, on phase 3/3 and 777p/s > One (or some) of the format's test vectors have an iteration count of 10000. You can benchmark it like this: $ ../run/john -test -form:PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512 -cost:10000 Will run 8 OpenMP threads Benchmarking: PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA512, GRUB2 / OS X 10.8+ [PBKDF2-SHA512 128/128 AVX 2x]... (8xOMP) DONE Speed for cost 1 (iteration count) of 10000 Raw: 721 c/s real, 96.2 c/s virtual The figure above is from a 5 yo laptop w/ 4 cores 8 threads and clocked at a relaxed 2.3 GHz. Unless I'm totally senile right now, that should mean a figure of about 148 c/s for 48583 iterations and you only only get a tenth of that? I have no idea why (unless your gear is also occupied with computing other things). Try that exact benchmark and report your outcome. The system should be idle when benchmarking, of course. 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.