Hey, we checked the forge library (the one they listed as the fastest in their benchmark). To my surprise it improved the time darastically. It took a little more than 1 minute on a core i3 machine with 4GB RAM. We have pushed latest changes to the repo https://github.com/usman-subhani/verification-extension
Regards, Uzair On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 6:36 PM, sajolida <[email protected]> wrote: > sajolida: > > anonym: > >> Uzair Farooq: > >>> Hey, > >>> > >>>> How long does it take to get a successful result of the verification > >>>> extension on your machine? > >>> > >>> It took half an hour for us. We haven't processed such large SHA files > >>> previously so I wasn't aware that it could take this long. Again, the > >>> problem here is that the javascript implementation of the SHA algo is > not > >>> that efficient enough. We can try some other SHA libraries but I don't > >>> expect they will make a considerable difference. > > > > I tried again on my machine. After 60 minutes it wasn't done yet. > > Now with 90 minutes it's over. I have a ThinkPad X200 with a Core i5 > M520. > > > > So 30 minutes is if you are lucky and have a quite fast machine :) > > > >> So, can you please look at the top candidates among those > implementations and report back your measurements? > > > > On top of speed, could you also measure RAM consumption? > > And since we're getting quite close to the deadline (November 16), I'd > like you to also be more clear about when you think you'll be able to > send us more work to review (so we can schedule time to review it). > > For example, do you think you'll be able to benchmark and report on the > performance of these other JavaScript libraries before the end of the > week? If not, when? > -- Sent from iPod
_______________________________________________ Tails-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to [email protected].
