Talk:Development ideas: Difference between revisions

From ReddNet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree#Tiger_tree_hash
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_tree#Tiger_tree_hash


If the IBP protocol were to be extended to support a single specific checksum method it would possibly be something like TTH.  In this example, this would mean TTH usage becomes part of the IBP protocol specification and both the IBP client and IBP depot would have to implement it The next level tools and APIs like LoRS and libxio and lstcp would not be required to know anything about IBP internal checksums, but they could optionally use it.
If the IBP protocol were to be extended to support a single specific checksum method it would possibly be something like TTH.  In this example, this would mean TTH usage becomes part of the IBP protocol specification and both the IBP client and IBP depot would have to implement itThe next level tools and APIs like LoRS and libxio and lstcp would not be required to know anything about IBP internal checksums, but they could optionally use it.


- Dan 1/24/08
- Dan 1/24/08

Revision as of 13:08, 24 January 2008

Data Integrity section.

  • One could imagine a 3-level tree
    • a hash for each lowest-common-unit, say the commonly used 1K
    • a single top hash for each IBP allocation
    • a single top hash for the file
    • or more levels

If the IBP protocol were to be extended to support a single specific checksum method it would possibly be something like TTH. In this example, this would mean TTH usage becomes part of the IBP protocol specification and both the IBP client and IBP depot would have to implement it. The next level tools and APIs like LoRS and libxio and lstcp would not be required to know anything about IBP internal checksums, but they could optionally use it.

- Dan 1/24/08