On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 12:42:08PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 03:47:43PM -0700, Miles Elam wrote:
> > Personally I've found the relative times instructive, merely outdated.
> > Perhaps
> > using md5 as a baseline and evaluating estimates relative to that baseline?
> >
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 03:47:43PM -0700, Miles Elam wrote:
> Personally I've found the relative times instructive, merely outdated.
> Perhaps
> using md5 as a baseline and evaluating estimates relative to that baseline?
>
> md5 = 1
> sha1 = 4
> crypt-des = 7
> crypt-md5 = 1,000
> crypt-bf/5 = 1
Personally I've found the relative times instructive, merely outdated.
Perhaps using md5 as a baseline and evaluating estimates relative to that
baseline?
md5 = 1
sha1 = 4
crypt-des = 7
crypt-md5 = 1,000
crypt-bf/5 = 12,500
crypt-bf/6 = 25,000
crypt-bf/7 = 50,000
crypt-bf/8 = 100,000
This way, wi
Miles Elam writes:
> Currently the docs show various stats on hashes per second and time needed
> to find a particular key. Unfortunately since the times are based upon a
> Pentium 4 @1.5GHz, I worry that many would take the advice on that page at
> face value, e.g., "more than 100/sec is too muc
Currently the docs show various stats on hashes per second and time needed
to find a particular key. Unfortunately since the times are based upon a
Pentium 4 @1.5GHz, I worry that many would take the advice on that page at
face value, e.g., "more than 100/sec is too much while less than 4/sec is
t
