Werner Koch wk at gnupg.org
Wed Sep 27 10:15:20 CEST 2006

On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:01, Robert J. Hansen said:

> my signatures and (b) using SHA512 is just as convenient and quick as
> using SHA256.

Jyust for the records here are benchmarks from libgcrypt for 10^6
bytes, calculated in chunks of 1000, 100 and 1 bytes:

SHA1            30ms    50ms   180ms
SHA224          30ms    50ms   110ms
SHA256          90ms    50ms   110ms
SHA384          70ms   100ms   140ms
SHA512          70ms    90ms   150ms

So there is a noticable performance gain for SHA256 (except for the
first one which might be a caching issue) 



More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list