Tomas Toft <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Martin Geisler wrote: >> Like you, I had expected GF256 to be significantly faster. > > I don't like the fixed input data in the timings. > > The Zp elements chosen may be good or bad candidates, and > computation on random elements may be worse...
That is true. > Regarding GF(256) this should not be a problem, as IIRC the > multiplication is a table lookup. However, you may avoid > cache-misses entirely, so those numbers should also be taken with a > small grain of salt. I don't know if the Python code is small enough to be affected by stuff like cache-misses... But I have speed up the GF256 computations somewhat by doing just one table lookup instead of three (the code used to use logarithm and anti-logarithm tables, it now simply uses a multiplication table). The time per multiplication went from 6.4 usec to 3.3 usec between d7d3f6ddb39b and 577c1e069d06. The time for a multiplication done on Shares is then even more dependent on the network than before. >> I wont really have time before I return from Switzerland in >> September (I leave in a week), but can I find the article online? I >> found the conference webpage, but it does not link to your article, >> and neither does your own publication list. > > My publication list is my fault. But the paper will be available in > the conference proceedings; to appear in LNCS I believe. I can dig > out a copy and mail it to you if you like. No, don't bother, I'll wait until I get back from Switzerland. -- Martin Geisler _______________________________________________ viff-devel mailing list (http://viff.dk/) [email protected] http://lists.viff.dk/listinfo.cgi/viff-devel-viff.dk
