On 1/31/26 15:25, Arno Lehmann via Bacula-users wrote:
for c in md5 sha1 sha256 sha512; do openssl speed -bytes 65536 \
-seconds 10 -evp $c 2>/dev/null | grep -E '^'$c ; done
For clarity, higher numbers here are better.
For a datapoint as a matter of interest, on my AMD Ryzen 9, sha512 is
slightly faster than md5; sha256 roughly 2.2 times faster than sha512;
and sha1 only perhaps 7% faster than sha256.
So a newer and much stronger hash is *not necessarily* slower than
old-school md5, and may even be faster. The overhead of storing the
larger hash is, frankly, trivial. On my hardware, the best
bang-for-the-buck of time vs. strength is probably sha256. sha512 is
stronger, but *for this purpose*, probably not in any truly meaningful way.
--
Phil Stracchino
Fenian House Publishing
[email protected]
[email protected]
Landline: +1.603.293.8485
Mobile: +1.603.998.6958
_______________________________________________
Bacula-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-users
