On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Alex Elsayed <eternaleye@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > And that _is_ the case; they are faster... *when both are software > implementations* They are also faster when both are optimized to use special instructions of the CPU. According to this Intel whitepaper, SHA-1 does not achieve less than 1 cycle/byte in any of the situations they tested: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/white-papers/haswell-cryptographic-performance-paper.pdf SpookyHash and CityHash obtain better than 0.5 cycle/byte, and in the case of CityHash256, better than 0.2 cycle/byte https://code.google.com/p/cityhash/source/browse/trunk/README -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
