phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

lists.openwall.net		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 linux-cve-announce 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]

Message-ID: <551BC2E9.3030003@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 12:05:29 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
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 <gmazyland@...il.com> 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.

Milan