Talk:Development ideas: Difference between revisions

From ReddNet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 18: Line 18:
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hash_functions#Computational_costs_of_CRCs_vs_Hashes
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hash_functions#Computational_costs_of_CRCs_vs_Hashes


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 be required 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 checksumming were optional, additional IBP commands to turn it on and off would be needed, and interoperability with non-checksumming depots becomes and issue.


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

Revision as of 05:13, 25 January 2008

Data Integrity

  • 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 be required 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 checksumming were optional, additional IBP commands to turn it on and off would be needed, and interoperability with non-checksumming depots becomes and issue.

- Dan 1/24/08