Hey, we checked the forge library (the one they listed as the fastest in
their benchmark). To my surprise it improved the time darastically. It took
a little more than 1 minute on a core i3 machine with 4GB RAM. We have
pushed latest changes to the repo
https://github.com/usman-subhani/verification-extension
Regards,
Uzair
On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 at 6:36 PM, sajolida <sajolida@???> wrote:
> sajolida:
> > anonym:
> >> Uzair Farooq:
> >>> Hey,
> >>>
> >>>> How long does it take to get a successful result of the verification
> >>>> extension on your machine?
> >>>
> >>> It took half an hour for us. We haven't processed such large SHA files
> >>> previously so I wasn't aware that it could take this long. Again, the
> >>> problem here is that the javascript implementation of the SHA algo is
> not
> >>> that efficient enough. We can try some other SHA libraries but I don't
> >>> expect they will make a considerable difference.
> >
> > I tried again on my machine. After 60 minutes it wasn't done yet.
> > Now with 90 minutes it's over. I have a ThinkPad X200 with a Core i5
> M520.
> >
> > So 30 minutes is if you are lucky and have a quite fast machine :)
> >
> >> So, can you please look at the top candidates among those
> implementations and report back your measurements?
> >
> > On top of speed, could you also measure RAM consumption?
>
> And since we're getting quite close to the deadline (November 16), I'd
> like you to also be more clear about when you think you'll be able to
> send us more work to review (so we can schedule time to review it).
>
> For example, do you think you'll be able to benchmark and report on the
> performance of these other JavaScript libraries before the end of the
> week? If not, when?
>
--
Sent from iPod
