Originally posted by geearf
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Mesa Turns To BLAKE3 For Faster Vulkan Shader Hashing
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by markg85 View Post
Stop saying AES-NI. It has nothing to do with SHA.
AES-NI is for optimized AES encryption.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_SHA_extensions is for optimized SHA hashing.
Therefore what you claim is like comparing an apple (the fruit) with a pinetree. It just doesn't make sense, you're comparing 2 completely different things.
As for benchmarks. I don't have fancy graphs or numbers as this is from memory and from about a year ago. On the raspberry pi (I tried V4) blake3 was stupidly fast for calculating a checksum for a file. Like ~3x faster. You can try that yourself with the "b3sum" tool.
On desktop hardware the difference wasn't that extreme but still like 1.5x.
Which, in my book, means it's just a vastly superior hashing algorithm compared to sha (I used sha256sum). If you want benchmarks, run them yourself. You likely already have sha256sum on your PC, just install b3sum and go compare till your hearts content 😉
Newer ARM chips tend to have those crypto hashing accelerations. RK3588 for example supposedly has such accelerators.
As for which branding Intel uses for it's instructions, sorry if I don't remember which group provides which instructions. AES-NI made sense. That's the header under which I would group the hashing stuff too.
Comment
-
Since blake3 is 6 times faster than blake2b
When we publish benchmarks, we try to be very careful to specify exactly what machine they ran on, and whether BLAKE3 was using one thread or multiple threads. But it's understandable that as these things get filtered through articles and forum posts, some of the finer details get lost.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ryao View Post
ZFS added Blake3 as a checksum option. xxhash is not usable for on-disk checksums in ZFS since ZFS uses 256-bit checksums while xxhash is at most 128-bit. The Fletcher4 checksum algorithm in ZFS generates 256-bit hashes and has comparable (memory speed) performance.
comparable to which? Blake3?
Thank you!
Comment
-
Originally posted by ryao View Post
Comparable to xxhash. Blake3 does not run at memory speed.
I'm creating new pool and wonder if should I choose Fletcher4 or Blake3?
As I understand Blake3 should allow me for background dedup, like BTRFS does.
All hardware supports SIMD2, so I understand that's requirement for h/w accel in ZFS.
Unfortunately I was unable to find any articles/benchmarks or even commments about Blake3 vs Fletcher4 performance in context of ZFS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by evil_core View Post
But how does Blake3 compares to Fletcher4 in context of ZFS?
I'm creating new pool and wonder if should I choose Fletcher4 or Blake3?
As I understand Blake3 should allow me for background dedup, like BTRFS does.
All hardware supports SIMD2, so I understand that's requirement for h/w accel in ZFS.
Unfortunately I was unable to find any articles/benchmarks or even commments about Blake3 vs Fletcher4 performance in context of ZFS.Last edited by ryao; 22 December 2023, 03:24 PM.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment