diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc')
| -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` +"""]] |