03-05-2015, 01:17 PM
(03-05-2015, 12:56 PM)atom Wrote: It's as i said, the wordload profile affects the required memory, too. In your above example you used -w 3 with 1.33 and -w 2 with 1.31. That makes no sense unless you test 1.33 with -w 2 as well
Sorry atom, I didn't notice the wrong Workload Profile. I've done it with -w 3 now and it works with the Full Hashlist under 1.31.
Code:
/oclHashcat/oclHashcat-1.31$ ./oclHashcat64.bin -a 3 -m 2711 -w 3 -o ../outfiles/hashes_out.txt --username --remove ../crackme/hashes_w_u.txt ?l?l?l?a?a?a?a --status
oclHashcat v1.31 starting...
Device #1: Cypress, 1024MB, 765Mhz, 18MCU
Hashes: 1869 hashes; 1869 unique digests, 1869 unique salts
Bitmaps: 14 bits, 16384 entries, 0x00003fff mask, 65536 bytes
Applicable Optimizers:
* Zero-Byte
* Precompute-Init
* Early-Skip
* Not-Iterated
* Brute-Force
Watchdog: Temperature abort trigger set to 90c
Watchdog: Temperature retain trigger set to 80c
Device #1: Kernel ./kernels/4098/m02710_a3.Cypress_1573.4_1573.4.kernel (567944 bytes)
Device #1: Kernel ./kernels/4098/markov_le_v4.Cypress_1573.4_1573.4.kernel (342732 bytes)
Device #1: Kernel ./kernels/4098/bzero.Cypress_1573.4_1573.4.kernel (33848 bytes)
Session.Name...: oclHashcat
Status.........: Running
Input.Mode.....: Mask (?l?l?l?a?a?a?a) [7]
Hash.Target....: File (../crackme/hashes_w_u.txt)
Hash.Type......: vBulletin > v3.8.5
Time.Started...: Thu Mar 5 12:08:10 2015 (9 secs)
Time.Estimated.: Tue Apr 21 00:21:30 2015 (46 days, 11 hours)
Speed.GPU.#1...: 377.4 kH/s
Recovered......: 0/1869 (0.00%) Digests, 0/1869 (0.00%) Salts
Progress.......: 6643777536/2675615889765000 (0.00%)
Skipped........: 0/6643777536 (0.00%)
Rejected.......: 0/6643777536 (0.00%)
HWMon.GPU.#1...: 99% Util, 62c Temp, 41% FanSorry to keep nagging on about this :-\ I get the Explenation you provided - at least for the full Hashlist. If you look at the Results I got when trying a single Hash the Workload Profile is the same. I just can't quite grasp that a Single Hash with Workload Profile 3 under 1.31 would work and under 1.33 it would need more then 1GB vram. Or didn't I get the full Picture here :-\ As I was saying, sorry for nagging on about this...