Re: feature request for coreutils: b2sum

[Pádraig Brady]

On 08/06/15 21:08, Taylor R Campbell wrote:
>     Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 17:59:10 +0000
>     From: Zooko Wilcox-OHearn <address@hidden>
> 
>    Dear coreutils folks and RMS:
> 
>    I'm writing to ask you to add the BLAKE2 hash function to coreutils.
> 
> Zooko asked me to send the following timings of portable BLAKE2 C code
> versus the hand-optimized assembly for MD5 and portable C for SHA-256
> that one finds in OpenSSL 1.0.1k, computed on a 1.2 GHz Freescale
> i.MX6 CPU (on different file, from /dev/urandom, of the same size as
> Zooko reported timings for, 1073741824 bytes):

Questions...

Does the file fit in cache?
A file about quarter the size would be enough for this test I think.

The md5sum, sha256sum, and sha512sum below were from coreutils
./configured --with-openssl=yes ?

> $ time md5sum randfile.0
> 7af160fa500c6ad20be1c8119c9141f8  randfile.0
> 
> real    0m9.132s
> user    0m6.600s
> sys     0m2.530s

I presume this was precached?

> $ time sha256sum randfile.0
> 12f7ce9d5594d60ffef36e1f1fb929c5e8b683112dffcbd5e9c04b819bb47e43  randfile.0
> 
> real    0m25.223s
> user    0m22.910s
> sys     0m2.310s

> $ time b2sum randfile.0
> ea2c77e755d0f5c84e9fff444cd6ce83a566b134d43e4fe37ed53886e0ca5c7e6141968498d5d765c4190e4b567c437337e8e57ef5ba9306cc11db29a4b9e987
>  randfile.0
> 
> real    0m48.012s
> user    0m46.070s
> sys     0m1.900s

I presume the above was for sha512sum

> $ time b2sum -a blake2sp randfile.0
> 2886c0adfd613381d02f18a8ed18527c98d88b115a974e61e030fb914118bd0d randfile.0
> 
> real    0m9.880s
> user    0m23.610s
> sys     0m3.260s

So this b2sum implementation is multithreaded
and has about the same total computational cost as sha256sum?

thanks,
Pádraig.