4 ms·

My pure JavaScript implementation of blake2s (which is approximately half the speed of parallelized sp variant) on 2.6 GHz Core i5 hashes at 170 MiB/s. JavaScri

by dchest 9y ago

My pure JavaScript implementation of blake2s (which is approximately half the speed of parallelized sp variant) on 2.6 GHz Core i5 hashes at 170 MiB/s. JavaScript! Whatever you do with your benchmark, you're doing it wrong. Also, there is no reason to use such large buffer sizes, I suspect this only makes benchmarks more unreliable. For real numbers on many platforms, see https://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html https://bench.cr.yp.to/results-hash.html (warning: very large page) For long messages on 2015 Intel Core i5-6600; 4 x 3310MHz: blake2b: 3.33 cycles/byte blake2s (remember, half speed of sp): 4.87 cycles/byte sha512: 5.06 cycles/byte sha256: 7.63 cycles/byte This means BLAKE2s is close to 700 MB/s, and BLAKE2sp will hash data at more than 1 GB/s. Here are the SHA-256 implementations measured: https://bench.cr.yp.to/impl-hash/sha256.html https://bench.cr.yp.to/impl-hash/sha256.html As you can see, the winner varies by platform, but in most cases OpenSSL wins, and Wei Dai's implementation is close.

jasode 9y ago
>My pure JavaScript implementation of blake2s (which is approximately half the speed of parallelized sp variant) on 2.6 GHz Core i5 hashes at 170 MiB/s. If I recompile blake2sp with "/O2" optimization, it improves to 171MB/sec. I ran tests with "/Od" optimizations disabled because the default Crypto++ library project has optimizations disabled when it makes the lib file. Therefore, every hash had no optimizations to keep the comparisons apples to apples. I see your Javascript code of BLAKE2 on github so I'll try it and compare. (https://github.com/dchest/blake2s-js https://github.com/dchest/blake2s-js) >Also, there is no reason to use such large buffer sizes, I suspect this only makes benchmarks more unreliable. I chose 500MB because I wanted the fastest hashes (CRC32, MD5) to take at least 1 second and many data sizes I want to hash will be 10GB+.
- dchest 9y ago
  If I recompile blake2sp with "/O2" optimization, it improves to 171MB/sec. Too slow! You're doing something wrong or measuring some slow implementation :) It should be more than 500 MB/s. Therefore, every hash had no optimizations to keep the comparisons apples to apples. That's not apples to apples at all. Most performant code is written specifically to be optimized by compiler. Use /O3 for benchmarking. Also, you just wrote that you were measuring a hand-optimized assembly version and then compared it to a C version compiled with optimization disabled? O_o I chose 500MB because I wanted the fastest hashes (CRC32, MD5) to take at least 1 second and many data sizes I want to hash will be 10GB+. Then call the update function with a reasonable 8K buffer many times. Using such large buffers will generate a lot of noise in benchmarks. * * * Speaking of JS, you can try my newer implementations/ports by cloning https://github.com/StableLib/stablelib https://github.com/StableLib/stablelib. run ./scripts/build, cd into packages/blake2s (/sha3, /sha256, etc.) and run: node lib/.bench.js Note that SHA-3 (and SHA-512, BLAKE2b [not implemented yet]) is slow in JS compared to SHA-256, BLAKE2s, etc. because it uses 64-bit numbers, so in JS I have to emulate them by using two 32-bit ones for low and high bits. * * Benchmarks on Intel Skylake: https://blake2.net/skylake.png https://blake2.net/skylake.png
  - jasode 9y ago
    >Too slow! You're doing something wrong I do now notice that my ASUS motherboard monitor software is reporting that my CPU is at 1.2GHz instead of 3.3GHz. There's probably something wrong there. However, even if I get it up to 3.3GHz, the relative speeds between different benchmarks won't change. I got the same relative numbers on the Macbook. >measuring a hand-optimized assembly version and then compared it to a C version compiled with optimization disabled? O_o Because there's lots of Wei Dai code that's C++ code instead of asm. He delivered his MSVC project with optimizations disabled instead of "/O3" so it made the most sense to start with optimizations disabled everywhere as a preliminary benchmark. If I recompile Wei Dai's code with optimization, it will make Crypto++ perform faster and make blake2sp look slower. In the end, it's a moot point because blake2sp with "/O2" is still slower than Crypto++ SHA256. >Using such large buffers will generate a lot of noise in benchmarks. Why? If you study the blake2sp source code, you'll see a loop inside the hash update() function to handle arbitrary sizees of buffers. Why does a loop outside that update() mean "less noise"? Why does adding more function calls of BUFSIZETOTAL divided by 8192 equal less noise?
    - dchest 9y ago
      If I recompile Wei Dai's code with optimization, it will make Crypto++ perform better and make blake2sp look slower. Just do it. If it's slower, you're doing something wrong. Which implementation of blake2sp are you measuring? It should be at least 1.5x as fast. Why? If you study the source code, you'll see a loop inside the hash update() function. Why does a loop outside that update() mean "less noise"? Why does adding more function calls of BUFSIZETOTAL divided by BLOCK PROCESSING SIZE equal less noise? Because you'll be measuring a lot of memory copying time apart from hashing time. Dealing with memory outside of CPU cache introduces a lot of variance. I suggest that instead of our discussion you should try to reproduce the results of https://bench.cr.yp.to https://bench.cr.yp.to (which is a highly trusted source, e.g. it was used during SHA-3 competition by NIST and participants): if something doesn't approximately match it means you did something wrong. In the process, you'll learn how to properly benchmark hash functions and make some sciency science by reproducing results! :-)
baby 9y ago
Daemen talked about some figures for KangarooTwelve during RWC 2017: * Intel Core i5-4570 (Haswell) 4.15 c/b for short input and 1.44 c/b for long input * Intel Core i5-6500 (Skylake) 3.72 c/b for short input and 1.22 c/b for long input * Intel Xeon Phi 7250 (Knights Landing) 4.56 c/b for short input and 0.74 c/b for long input https://youtu.be/F_nAGS9L97c?t=2451 https://youtu.be/F_nAGS9L97c?t=2451

by dchest 9y ago

jasode 9y ago

>My pure JavaScript implementation of blake2s (which is approximately half the speed of parallelized sp variant) on 2.6 GHz Core i5 hashes at 170 MiB/s. If I recompile blake2sp with "/O2" optimization, it improves to 171MB/sec. I ran tests with "/Od" optimizations disabled because the default Crypto++ library project has optimizations disabled when it makes the lib file. Therefore, every hash had no optimizations to keep the comparisons apples to apples. I see your Javascript code of BLAKE2 on github so I'll try it and compare. (https://github.com/dchest/blake2s-js https://github.com/dchest/blake2s-js) >Also, there is no reason to use such large buffer sizes, I suspect this only makes benchmarks more unreliable. I chose 500MB because I wanted the fastest hashes (CRC32, MD5) to take at least 1 second and many data sizes I want to hash will be 10GB+.

dchest 9y ago
If I recompile blake2sp with "/O2" optimization, it improves to 171MB/sec. Too slow! You're doing something wrong or measuring some slow implementation :) It should be more than 500 MB/s. Therefore, every hash had no optimizations to keep the comparisons apples to apples. That's not apples to apples at all. Most performant code is written specifically to be optimized by compiler. Use /O3 for benchmarking. Also, you just wrote that you were measuring a hand-optimized assembly version and then compared it to a C version compiled with optimization disabled? O_o I chose 500MB because I wanted the fastest hashes (CRC32, MD5) to take at least 1 second and many data sizes I want to hash will be 10GB+. Then call the update function with a reasonable 8K buffer many times. Using such large buffers will generate a lot of noise in benchmarks. * * * Speaking of JS, you can try my newer implementations/ports by cloning https://github.com/StableLib/stablelib https://github.com/StableLib/stablelib. run ./scripts/build, cd into packages/blake2s (/sha3, /sha256, etc.) and run: node lib/.bench.js Note that SHA-3 (and SHA-512, BLAKE2b [not implemented yet]) is slow in JS compared to SHA-256, BLAKE2s, etc. because it uses 64-bit numbers, so in JS I have to emulate them by using two 32-bit ones for low and high bits. * * Benchmarks on Intel Skylake: https://blake2.net/skylake.png https://blake2.net/skylake.png
- jasode 9y ago
  >Too slow! You're doing something wrong I do now notice that my ASUS motherboard monitor software is reporting that my CPU is at 1.2GHz instead of 3.3GHz. There's probably something wrong there. However, even if I get it up to 3.3GHz, the relative speeds between different benchmarks won't change. I got the same relative numbers on the Macbook. >measuring a hand-optimized assembly version and then compared it to a C version compiled with optimization disabled? O_o Because there's lots of Wei Dai code that's C++ code instead of asm. He delivered his MSVC project with optimizations disabled instead of "/O3" so it made the most sense to start with optimizations disabled everywhere as a preliminary benchmark. If I recompile Wei Dai's code with optimization, it will make Crypto++ perform faster and make blake2sp look slower. In the end, it's a moot point because blake2sp with "/O2" is still slower than Crypto++ SHA256. >Using such large buffers will generate a lot of noise in benchmarks. Why? If you study the blake2sp source code, you'll see a loop inside the hash update() function to handle arbitrary sizees of buffers. Why does a loop outside that update() mean "less noise"? Why does adding more function calls of BUFSIZETOTAL divided by 8192 equal less noise?
  - dchest 9y ago
    If I recompile Wei Dai's code with optimization, it will make Crypto++ perform better and make blake2sp look slower. Just do it. If it's slower, you're doing something wrong. Which implementation of blake2sp are you measuring? It should be at least 1.5x as fast. Why? If you study the source code, you'll see a loop inside the hash update() function. Why does a loop outside that update() mean "less noise"? Why does adding more function calls of BUFSIZETOTAL divided by BLOCK PROCESSING SIZE equal less noise? Because you'll be measuring a lot of memory copying time apart from hashing time. Dealing with memory outside of CPU cache introduces a lot of variance. I suggest that instead of our discussion you should try to reproduce the results of https://bench.cr.yp.to https://bench.cr.yp.to (which is a highly trusted source, e.g. it was used during SHA-3 competition by NIST and participants): if something doesn't approximately match it means you did something wrong. In the process, you'll learn how to properly benchmark hash functions and make some sciency science by reproducing results! :-)

baby 9y ago

Daemen talked about some figures for KangarooTwelve during RWC 2017: * Intel Core i5-4570 (Haswell) 4.15 c/b for short input and 1.44 c/b for long input * Intel Core i5-6500 (Skylake) 3.72 c/b for short input and 1.22 c/b for long input * Intel Xeon Phi 7250 (Knights Landing) 4.56 c/b for short input and 0.74 c/b for long input https://youtu.be/F_nAGS9L97c?t=2451 https://youtu.be/F_nAGS9L97c?t=2451