undefined | Better HN

0 pointsadrian_b7mo ago0 comments

Unlike SHA-256, BLAKE3 can be evaluated in parallel, so the speedup factor over SHA-256 depends on the number of available CPU cores.

While BLAKE3 can be many times faster than SHA-256, by consuming many times more power, the amount of work for computing a hash differs much less between the 2 hashes than the execution time on a multi-core CPU.

The speed difference quoted by you for a single thread is caused by your Skylake-based CPU, which does not have the SHA hardware instructions.

Moreover, even the programs that claim to use the SHA hardware instructions may have a speed several times lower than allowed by the hardware, because the more recent CPUs, e.g. from the last 4 years, have wider SHA instructions than the older CPUs, but the programs must have been compiled to support such CPUs, e.g. Zen 3 and newer or Alder Lake and newer.

0 comments

amelius7mo ago

This makes me wonder how much security suffers if you split a file in N smaller files, compute a hash for each of them, then hash the concatenation of the hashes.

adrian_bOP7mo ago

BLAKE3 and other parallelizable hashes do exactly this, but using a somewhat more complex algorithm, which ensures that the result is a secure hash.

Such an algorithm has been first published by Ralph Merkle, in 1979, but it has been improved later:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree

For security, it is necessary to use different hash functions at different levels in the hash tree, but this is trivially achieved by using the same hash function, but also hashing some extra distinguishing data besides the hashes from the previous level.

oconnor6637mo ago

It's "easy" to do it right but also very common to do it wrong: https://jacko.io/tree_hashing.html

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse