lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:05:29 +0200
From: Milan Broz <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

On 04/01/2015 11:14 AM, Krisztián Pintér wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Milan Broz <> wrote:
>> - the low memory setting is "unstable" because of RUSAGE measurement:
>>   Real memory us is simple difference of getrusage(RUSAGE_SELF, ...)
>>   before and after run (well, here maximum of three runs).
> just a quick question: wouldn't it be easier and more precise to
> calculate the memory requirement instead of measuring it? it should be
> quite straightforward from the algorithms.

The whole point of these tests initially were to *measure* real parameters
and detect possible bugs and unexpected limits.

It just now slightly shifted to something more, so adding comparison
with theoretic calculation is probably also needed.
The last test just use calculated values to present kind of normalized output,
but in graph is presented only measured value.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists