Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 00:45:18 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: OMP vs. OpenCL performance On 2017-10-01 00:38, magnum wrote: > On 2017-09-30 18:12, Scott I. Remick wrote: >> 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 BTW I hope you mean 777 p/s on GPU now. If you get that speed on CPU, all bets are off - it's now too fast (LOL). The answer below was in the context of your CPU figure of about 13-14 p/s. magnum > 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.
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.