On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 07:43:56PM +0200, Dmitry Chestnykh wrote:
> My simple performance test of SHA-1 from checkin [f2ede7da6d] vs
> OpenSSL shows that the latter is a bit faster:
When I ported the NetBSD implementation, I was considering using
OpenSSL. The discussion with Richard was essentiall
BTW, if I run `openssl sha1`, it's slower than Fossil's sha1test compiled with
OpenSSL SHA-1:
openssl sha1:
real0m3.459s
user0m3.126s
sys 0m0.317s
fossil with OpenSSL's SHA1 from my diff:
real0m3.025s
user0m2.707s
sys 0m0.315s
current fossil trunk:
real0m3.557s
us
> Given that one of fossil's selling points is ease of installation, including
> having no external dependencies. Let's not change that.
I agree, but I proposed (and the retracted) that OpenSSL will be used only when
compiled with SSL support ;-)
--
Dmitry Chestnykh
___
On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Dmitry Chestnykh
wrote:
> > 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).
>
> Yes, let's leave it as it
Not so fast! :)
It seems that the current code is faster than openssl on intel (well, on
linux anyway). But it is slower on AMD chips, whether 32 or 64 bit os.
That is something which is easily detectable, although I don't know if I
have the patience to try to figure out what is going on to make
> Maybe it depends on your specific hardware, but on linux32 (i3 core2) I get
> (kubuntu11-04.iso) :
Yay, good then, no need to use OpenSSL.
I suspect this is due to LLVM backend of OS X compiler which is default in
Lion. For some crypto code I've written it compiles binaries that are slower
t
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 ti
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 Ope
8 matches
Mail list logo
