On Fri, Dec 08, 2000 at 11:10:19AM -0800, Nathan Myers wrote: > This is very interesting. MD4 is faster than MD5. (MD5, described as > "MD4 with suspenders on", does some extra stuff to protect against more- > obscure attacks, of no interest to us.) Which 64-bit CRC code did you > use, Mark Mitchell's? Yes. > Are you really saying MD5 was faster than CRC-32? Yes. I expect it's because the operations used in MD5 are easily parallelized, and operate on blocks of 64-bytes at a time, while the CRC is mostly non-parallelizable, uses a table lookup, and operates on single bytes. -- Bruce Guenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://em.ca/~bruceg/
- Re: [HACKERS] RFC: CRC datatype Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] RFC: CRC datatype Horst Herb
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Bruce Guenter
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Ian Lance Taylor
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Bruce Guenter
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Tom Lane
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing version Bruce Guenter
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing vers... Tom Lane
- Re: CRC was: Re: [HACKERS] beta testing ... Bruce Guenter
- [HACKERS] Re: CRC Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Nathan Myers
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Tom Lane
- Re: [HACKERS] Re: CRC Bruce Guenter