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 essentially
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
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
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
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
