[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Transparent compression in the FS
jw schultz wrote:
> Because each hash algorithm has different pathologies
> multiple hashes are generally better than one but their
> effective aggregate bit count is less than the sum of the
> separate bit counts.

I was coming to this conclusion too... still, it's safer simply to
handle collisions.

> The idea of this sort of block level hashing to allow
> sharing of identical blocks seems attractive but i wouldn't
> trust any design that did not accept as given that there
> would be false positives. This means that a write would
> have to not only hash the block but then if there is a
> collision do a compare of the raw data. Then you have to


> add the overhead of having lists of blocks that match a hash
> value and reference counts for each block itself. Further,
> every block write would then need to include, at minimum,
> relinking facilities on the hash lists and hash entry
> allocations plus the inode block list being updated. Finally

Consider a simple key-value map, where "$hash $n" is the key and the
value is the block of data. Only three operations need occur:
* if hash exists (highly unlikely!), read and compare w/ raw data
* write new block to disk
* add single datum to key-value index

Inode block lists would need to be updated regardless of any collision;
that would be a standard and required part of any VFS interaction. And
the internal workings of the key-value index (think Berkeley DB) are
static, regardless of any collision.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.222 / U:4.964 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site