diff options
| author |  http://nanotech.nanotechcorp.net/ <NanoTech@web> | 2012-08-10 04:37:33 +0000 |
|---|---|---|
| committer |  admin <admin@branchable.com> | 2012-08-10 04:37:33 +0000 |
| commit | 0076c613c03890d98c1c4cb5722763440084ab52 (patch) | |
| tree | 8f485db8e4e6e20dea7e72150f47cad2956e8adc | |
| parent | 96fe122d0940a02c55344215d90ffe6ebe624314 (diff) | |
Added a comment: SHA performance
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/backends/comment_1_375bb1fb5973e8fa67b763f2dd6e404b._comment | 13 |
1 files changed, 13 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/backends/comment_1_375bb1fb5973e8fa67b763f2dd6e404b._comment b/doc/backends/comment_1_375bb1fb5973e8fa67b763f2dd6e404b._comment new file mode 100644 index 000000000..dc178a6fe --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/backends/comment_1_375bb1fb5973e8fa67b763f2dd6e404b._comment @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +[[!comment format=mdwn + username="http://nanotech.nanotechcorp.net/" + nickname="NanoTech" + subject="SHA performance" + date="2012-08-10T04:37:32Z" + content=""" +It turns out that (at least on x86-64 machines) `SHA512` [is faster than][1] `SHA256`. In some benchmarks I performed<sup>1</sup> `SHA256` was 1.8–2.2x slower than `SHA1` while `SHA512` was only 1.5–1.6x slower. + +`SHA224` and `SHA384` are effectively just truncated versions of `SHA256` and `SHA512` so their performance characteristics are identical. + +[1]: https://community.emc.com/community/edn/rsashare/blog/2010/11/01/sha-2-algorithms-when-sha-512-is-more-secure-and-faster +<sup>1</sup> `time head -c 100000000 /dev/zero | shasum -a 512` +"""]] |