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: <CA+hr98G2wCmWBrnU0nN-pioX0DwnhsysaBTZukvFU6=m9=oGjw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:14:28 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

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.