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: <20150401084526.GA9000@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:26 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:02:07AM -0500, Steve Thomas wrote:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_Lenovo_X230_i5_16G/mc_cost_2/memory_time_round.png
> 
> Note I believe there might be a problem with some of it: battcrypt on 5x and
> POMELO on 3x and 5x. Since those algorithms don't have t_costs for those and I
> think they are run at lower settings.
> 
> But ignoring that these are the best benchmarks I've seen since they're
> normalized for rounds across memory and time vs memory (instead of having t_cost
> or m_cost as an axis).

Cool!  Why are these for t_cost from 2 to 5, though?  Where's t_cost 0
and 1?  I think only behavior with the lowest supported t_cost matters
for selection of a scheme, whereas exactly how higher t_cost affects the
behavior is merely additional information to be used for fine-tuning.

Also, are the Lyra2 results included here for 1 or 2 threads?

I assume the rest are for 1 thread?

Alexander