3 ms·
"BLAKE2 comes in two main flavors: BLAKE2b is optimized for 64-bit platforms, and BLAKE2s for smaller architectures. On 64-bit platforms, BLAKE2 is often fast
by eternalban 10y ago
"BLAKE2 comes in two main flavors: BLAKE2b is optimized for 64-bit platforms, and BLAKE2s for smaller architectures. On 64-bit platforms, BLAKE2 is often faster than MD5, yet provides security similar to that of SHA-3. We specify parallel versions BLAKE2bp and BLAKE2sp that are up to 4 and 8 times faster, by taking advantage of SIMD and/or multiple cores."
Well, it's supposed to beat MD5 straight up. Granted the claim is a bit hedged.
> if done in the most simple way by bit shifting can be a factor
Do you mean using byte swap instructions or is there an algorithm that I should know about? :)
- dchest 10y agoParallel versions of BLAKE2 are indeed even faster, but optimized implementations of non-parallel BLAKE2s and BLAKE2b also use SIMD instructions in compression function (e.g. https://github.com/BLAKE2/BLAKE2/blob/master/sse/blake2b-round.h https://github.com/BLAKE2/BLAKE2/blob/master/sse/blake2b-rou...). * * * Not byte swapping, just simple reading bytes and shifting them into the correct position in uint32 like this: uint32 result = (b[3] << 24) | (b[2] << 16) | (b[1] << 8) | b[0]; Which is slower than uint32 result = *b; or if LE is not native: uint32 result = swap(*b);
- eternalban 10y ago> optimized implementations of non-parallel BLAKE2s and BLAKE2b also use SIMD Sure, have seen those. No biggie, but my point was that vanila B2b (on C) is already neck and neck with MD5. > uint32 result = (b[3] << 24) | (b[2] << 16) | (b[1] << 8) | b[0]; Yep, akaik that's all you can do on the JVM & of course for 64bit it's even more work. I thought you meant some sort of magic number bit wizzardry :)