Network Support Status?

[hackajar]

I have two hosts each with 2x GTX Fermi cards. Do you have an update on Server / Client network support? This would be really helpful, as right now, I only do two separate lists or just have one host Folding@home while idle.

-hackajar

[Bitweasil]

Still working on it. I've been backed down a bit on effort the past month or two, trying to avoid burnout and spend some time exploring other things as well (mostly fun twisting roads). It's still on my list to work on.

[Bitweasil]

*scritches*

I think it's working.

I need to hammer out some details, but I seem to have network support working for unsalted hashes (MD5, NTLM, SHA1).

It's still *very* rough around the edges, and I have a lot of testing to do, but so far, it appears to work. At least on my laptop.

Hopefully I can get this into SVN soon and maybe, if I'm really lucky, figure out some Windows builds. Anyone got a spare Asus 1215N laying around?

[Picch]

Can't wait to give this a go.

[Bitweasil]

Haven't forgotten about this...

I'm working on getting the display to function. I had a ton of debug print statements that were screwing stuff up, and the display wasn't being updated - passwords found remotely weren't getting displayed (though they'd get added to the final printout/output file/etc).

Soon...

[Picch]

Very cool. Since this will be a semi-distributed model, will each "node" be able to use its own bits, threads, and blocks settings? Are you using the CUDA 4.0 RCs or are we safe still being on 3.2?

On a completely unrelated subject, what is the significance of charset files with multiple lines? I've been meaning to ask about that.

[Sc00bz]

On a completely unrelated subject, what is the significance of charset files with multiple lines? I've been meaning to ask about that.

It's per position character sets.
charsetlikely:

Code: Select all

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~
!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~

This means it will crack passwords that are:
[ -~]
[ -~][a-z]{1,3}
[ -~][a-z]{3}[ -~]{1,4}

[Bitweasil]

What Sc00bz said. Beat me to it.

Important to note, though, is that the command line flag to use per-position is different!

-c [file] loads a single charset. If you loaded the charsetlikely file, it would simply load all 95 characters for ALL positions.
-u [file] loads the per-position charset, which would do what sc00bz described.

[Bitweasil]

Very cool. Since this will be a semi-distributed model, will each "node" be able to use its own bits, threads, and blocks settings? Are you using the CUDA 4.0 RCs or are we safe still being on 3.2?

I'm still on 3.2. I don't typically upgrade CUDA versions until they're public. I have enough trouble on my hands without beta testing...

As for each node's settings, I'm still hammering out details, but the general flow is worked out.

Each node will use the same "bits per workunit" setting as the master node. The client nodes get the hashlist, charset, general information, and workunits from the master node, perform the operations, and feed completed workunits/passwords back to the master.

This means that, once I write it, you will be able to use separate threads/blocks settings on the client nodes, but will be locked into the same charset/bits per workunit/hash lists/etc. They are all working on the same problem, just as different systems.

Long term, my plan is to eliminate a lot of the command line fiddling by adding back in the auto-tune capability, and automatically setting up the "large bitmap" to as large as it can be given the video card. This adds significant performance, and even a 128/256 meg bitmap would be a huge improvement over not using one. I'd like to get it as close to "fire and forget" as possible. I'll still allow people to tweak settings, but I'd prefer they not *have* to do it to get good performance.

The other thing missing right now is a more robust workunit system. Right now, if a workunit is handed out, it is assumed to be completed. I don't check for non-completed workunits (if the client disconnects or there's a network glitch). I will be updating the workunit system to handle this, as I designed it from the beginning to be able to handle this case when needed.

[Picch]

That makes sense. I know I personally don't mind having to tune each node, if it means a faster beta release