Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2020 14:09:53 +0100 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Session management on AMI - Interrupting and resuming Mike, On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 03:56:53PM +0100, Solar Designer wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 10:01:38PM +0900, SQP Admin wrote: > > We are currently running an Openwall Amazon AMI, running an incremental > > session on a ZIP archive. We have chosen to go with a c5.24xlarge > > infrastructure and using multiple CPU threads like so: > > > > john --session=XX --incremental=Alnum --fork=96 xxxx.hash > > > > We are in a situation where we expect getting a correct guess will take > > some time and also have budget restrictions. We understand sessions can > > be interrupted and resumed using the --restore=[sessionname] option. Here > > are my questions: > > > > 1. Is the approach we've taken to take advantage of the 96 CPUs correct? > > (--fork=96) - or is there a better way of leveraging that instance > > performance? > > The approach you've taken is probably optimal, but we need to know > whether your archive is of PKZIP (fast) or WinZip (slow) kind. For > PKZIP, "--fork" is certainly the way to go. For WinZip, OpenMP works > well enough and is more flexible (allows you to adjust thread count on > restore) and enables incremental mode to test passwords in a slightly > more optimal order. Actually, for WinZip you'd have better speed and performance/dollar on a GPU in p3.2xlarge. So I assume/hope you have a PKZIP archive, for which "--fork=96" on c5.24xlarge is appropriate. Alexander
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.