lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Transparent compression in the FS
On Thu, 16 Oct 2003 jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 16, 2003 at 04:04:48PM -0700, jw schultz wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> But at the same time we rely on TCP/IP which uses a hash (checksum)
> to detect back packets. It seems to work well in practice even
> though the hash is weak and the network corrupts a lot of packets.
>
> Lots of machines dont have ECC ram and seem to work reasonably well.
>
> It seems like these two are a lot more likely to bit you than hash
> collisions in MD5. But Ill have to go read the paper to see what
> Im missing.

The TCP/ECC thingies are different since the probability of false
negatives is the combined probability that 1) the data is wrong 2) the
hash collides. In case of a hash-indexing algo the probability of coliding
hashes is "raw".



- Davide

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.092 / U:0.832 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site