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 Personally I've found the relative times instructive, merely outdated.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 = 12,500
> crypt-bf/6 = 25,000
> crypt-bf/7 = 50,000
> crypt-bf/8 = 100,000
>
> This way, with the caveat that performance will vary from machine to machine,
> there is a sense of the relative costs of using each algorithm, which does not
> change as wildly with time. It lets people know how bad md5 and sha1 are for
> protecting passwords et al. It also demonstrates that each turn of blowfish in
> this module effectively doubles the time needed to crack and halves the number
> of hashes one can perform.
>
> In short, I'd hate for the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater.
I have used your new testing times, plus added these relative
measurements, which shoud give us the best of both worlds. Patch
attached; you can see the results here:
http://momjian.us/tmp/pgsql/pgcrypto.html
What speed was the I5 CPU you used?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ Everyone has their own god. +
