14 lines
712 B
Text
14 lines
712 B
Text
|
[[!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`
|
|||
|
|
"""]]
|