hashcat Forum › Deprecated; Ancient Versions › Very old oclHashcat-plus Support v
Question: use of SSD

Threaded Mode
Question: use of SSD
proinside Offline
Member
***
Posts: 134
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2010
#1
06-28-2012, 10:02 PM
Does any one already experienced using a SSD while testing / using
hashcat or hashcat-plus or lite ? Does it makes any significant diference
in performance (reading dictionaires, heavy or not) or anything else that
might worth to be stated here for other testers ?
Thanks.
Find
Hash-IT Offline
Moderator
*****
Posts: 723
Threads: 85
Joined: Apr 2011
#2
06-29-2012, 02:20 AM
I don't think it makes much difference, perhaps a tiny difference for very fast algorithms, but I am guessing.

After reading your post I loaded a large list from a USB2 flash drive as a test, I didn't notice much difference to be honest. Smile

So I doubt the difference between a magnetic drive and SSD will be noticeable.
Find
proinside Offline
Member
***
Posts: 134
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2010
#3
06-29-2012, 05:44 AM
I might be mistaken, but I think that the read speed isn't the same from
a USB2 flash as from a SSD. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Find
undeath Offline
Sneaky Bastard
******
Posts: 2,301
Threads: 11
Joined: Jul 2010
#4
06-29-2012, 09:05 AM
most SSDs have higher transfer rates, so reading dicts will be faster. But there is no reason for hashcat to be run off a SSD.
Find
atom Offline
Administrator
*******
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2010
#5
06-29-2012, 10:41 AM
on window, rolf uses a ram-disc to speed up dictionary loading. but i have no idea if it makes any difference. on linux this is not neccessary since the linux kernel caches is per default.
Website Find
wgmmmx Offline
Member
***
Posts: 56
Threads: 5
Joined: Mar 2011
#6
06-30-2012, 12:02 AM (This post was last modified: 06-30-2012, 12:02 AM by wgmmmx.)
No difrence I use SSD sata 2.0 longer time and speed is same like use normal hdd.
Find
atom Offline
Administrator
*******
Posts: 5,185
Threads: 230
Joined: Apr 2010
#7
06-30-2012, 08:44 AM
I think he is talking about dictionary based attacks. Sure on oclHashcat-lite there will be no difference.
Website Find
proinside Offline
Member
***
Posts: 134
Threads: 27
Joined: May 2010
#8
06-30-2012, 06:59 PM
(06-30-2012, 08:44 AM)atom Wrote: I think he is talking about dictionary based attacks. Sure on oclHashcat-lite there will be no difference.

You're correct atom.
It is about dictionary based attacks.
If we spleet a huge dictionaire, looks like wasting the GPU power
with small dictionaries (however with large rule files this can be
different, of course), that's why I was searching for some one
else trying that with SSD and, if that same user have a SATA
(2 or 3) would be interesting to see if the load time diference is
notable or not.
I mean, diference of 10 seconds, to me, loading a (large) dictionaire
is a lot of time. For those who have enough free time, that's nothing
special, I guess.
Find
forumhero Offline
Senior Member
****
Posts: 313
Threads: 44
Joined: Aug 2011
#9
07-02-2012, 06:20 PM (This post was last modified: 07-02-2012, 06:21 PM by forumhero.)
i have ssd in all my systems, sata2 and sata3 raid 0, blah blah

don't notice a difference with dictionary attack but then again i haven't timed it. whenever i load large dictionaries (like that 18-in-1.lst) into oclhc-plus it doesn't run right. only 2 of 8 gpu will show active and at about 40% utilization. does this in every version of oclhc-plus, so now all my dictionaries are split into smaller chunks
Find