Maybe it depends on your specific hardware, but on linux32 (i3 core2) I get (kubuntu11-04.iso) :
openssl sha1 : 3.823 fossil sha1sum : 3.660 (old fossil: 4.936) On linux64 (amd athlon X2, using a 600M data file): openssl sha1 : 2.504 fossil sha1sum : 3.202 (old fossil: 4.211) (these are "best times" from a number of runs) Clearly, the new code is much better than the old code; but it's not clear the openssl code is always a win... I'm not sure whether or not it's a good idea to try to determine at run time which to use (since the check overhead has to be measurable after all). On 09/01/2011 08:43 PM, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote: > I noticed the recent effort to optimize SHA-1 in Fossil, and it crossed my > mind that we can use OpenSSL implementation (which seem to be heavily > optimized), since we already link it when FOSSIL_ENABLE_SSL is defined, and > fall back to the current implementation if Fossil is not linked without > OpenSSL. > > My simple performance test of SHA-1 from checkin [f2ede7da6d] vs OpenSSL > shows that the latter is a bit faster: > > $ time ./fossil sha1sum ~/Downloads/FreeBSD-8.2-RELEASE-i386-disc1.iso > > Current implementation: > > real 0m3.549s > user 0m3.232s > sys 0m0.315s > > OpenSSL implementation: > > real 0m3.017s > user 0m2.699s > sys 0m0.316s > > > Compiler: i686-apple-darwin11-llvm-gcc-4.2 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. > build 5658) (LLVM build 2335.15.00) > > The diff is very simple -- just a couple of defines; I have attached it. > > -- > Dmitry Chestnykh > > > > > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
