Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 17 Oct 2003 10:16:29 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: Transparent compression in the FS |
| |
On Fri, Oct 17, 2003 at 09:07:29AM -0400, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote: > On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 06:47:15PM -0700, Eric Sandall wrote: > > > It doesn't really matter that the hash collision is /less/ likely to ruin data > > than something in hardware as it adds an /extra/ layer of possible corruption, > > so you have a net gain in the possible corruption of your data. Now, if you > > could write it so that there was /no/ possibility of data corruption, than it > > would be much more acceptable as it wouldn't add any extra likeliness of > > corruption than already exists. > > This assumes that the probability of there being a bug in the code which > checks for identical blocks is less than the probability of a hash collision. > I am not sure that is a good assumption.
The complexity of a memcmp() is pretty low... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |