On 08/06/15 21:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote: > Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:59:10 +0000 > From: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <[email protected]> > > Dear coreutils folks and RMS: > > I'm writing to ask you to add the BLAKE2 hash function to coreutils. > > Zooko asked me to send the following timings of portable BLAKE2 C code > versus the hand-optimized assembly for MD5 and portable C for SHA-256 > that one finds in OpenSSL 1.0.1k, computed on a 1.2 GHz Freescale > i.MX6 CPU (on different file, from /dev/urandom, of the same size as > Zooko reported timings for, 1073741824 bytes):
Questions... Does the file fit in cache? A file about quarter the size would be enough for this test I think. The md5sum, sha256sum, and sha512sum below were from coreutils ./configured --with-openssl=yes ? > $ time md5sum randfile.0 > 7af160fa500c6ad20be1c8119c9141f8 randfile.0 > > real 0m9.132s > user 0m6.600s > sys 0m2.530s I presume this was precached? > $ time sha256sum randfile.0 > 12f7ce9d5594d60ffef36e1f1fb929c5e8b683112dffcbd5e9c04b819bb47e43 randfile.0 > > real 0m25.223s > user 0m22.910s > sys 0m2.310s > $ time b2sum randfile.0 > ea2c77e755d0f5c84e9fff444cd6ce83a566b134d43e4fe37ed53886e0ca5c7e6141968498d5d765c4190e4b567c437337e8e57ef5ba9306cc11db29a4b9e987 > randfile.0 > > real 0m48.012s > user 0m46.070s > sys 0m1.900s I presume the above was for sha512sum > $ time b2sum -a blake2sp randfile.0 > 2886c0adfd613381d02f18a8ed18527c98d88b115a974e61e030fb914118bd0d randfile.0 > > real 0m9.880s > user 0m23.610s > sys 0m3.260s So this b2sum implementation is multithreaded and has about the same total computational cost as sha256sum? thanks, Pádraig.
