From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263270AbTJQBcq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:46 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263271AbTJQBcq (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:46 -0400 Received: from uni02du.unity.ncsu.edu ([152.1.13.102]:62089 "EHLO uni02du.unity.ncsu.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263270AbTJQBcp (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:45 -0400 From: jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 21:32:45 -0400 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Transparent compression in the FS Message-ID: <20031017013245.GA6053@ncsu.edu> References: <1066163449.4286.4.camel@Borogove> <20031015133305.GF24799@bitwizard.nl> <3F8D6417.8050409@pobox.com> <20031016162926.GF1663@velociraptor.random> <20031016172930.GA5653@work.bitmover.com> <20031016174927.GB25836@speare5-1-14> <20031016230448.GA29279@pegasys.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20031016230448.GA29279@pegasys.ws> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. Thanks, Jim