From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Grzegorz_Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz?= Subject: Re: Congratulations! we have got hash function screwed up Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 22:17:52 +0100 Message-ID: <2f4958ff050118131714f5411c@mail.gmail.com> References: <77912E9FD42896419D1CEF15E1C397A58AFCF1@london.jaguarfreightservices.local> <20041230235911.4911a20c.hihone@bigpond.net.au> <41D42F93.9060107@namesys.com> Reply-To: =?UTF-8?Q?Grzegorz_Ja=C5=9Bkiewicz?= Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <41D42F93.9060107@namesys.com> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Hans Reiser Cc: Matthias Andree , hihone@bigpond.net.au, reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 08:40:51 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote: > Fixing hash collisions in V3 to do them the way V4 does them would > create more bugs and user disruption than the current bug we have all > lived with for 5 years until now. If someone thinks it is a small > change to fix it, send me a patch. Better by far to fix bugs in V4, > which is pretty stable these days. As I understeand, tea hash is based on tea (tiny encryption aglo), which was the cause of xbox-linux sucess, and few others. Pleas consider updating it to use xxtea algo. I know, it won't be backward compatbile, but well. Where is about all the others, I don't use them, and for me tea is the only resonable hash to use on systems where I have very much great number of files per directory (to name it, Maildirs). Never had such problem myself, every hash function has a weaknes. Nothing new. But providing another, much stronger hash, or correct tea hash to use xxtea, would be something good indeed. -- GJ