From: "William K. Josephson" <jkw@eecs.harvard.edu>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] compare-by-hash
Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 21:38:09 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030601013809.GA94559@mero.morphisms.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3ED95B04.2070707@ameritech.net>
On Sat, May 31, 2003 at 08:46:44PM -0500, northern snowfall wrote:
> >For something like venti it is worth working
> >out the numbers and probably worth detecting collisions, but
> >the chances of silently losing/corrupting data due to disk
> >firmware or driver bugs, for instance, seems much worse.
>
> That may be true, but, how can I know that without any facts?
> If you admit that venti is worth working out the numbers, why
> even make this rant?
It isn't a rant. I'm just amused that people in general
are often so worried about hash collisions but willing to
tolerate common software systems which it is painfully
obvious are far less reliable. For instance, where I have
been working recently, people will trust important data to
filesystems that are easily crashed and corrupted, but they
worry more about sha1 hash collisions. I find fsck and
failed disks much scarier since they can and do burn me
with some regularity :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-01 1:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 44+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-05-31 23:58 philw
2003-06-01 0:00 ` Russ Cox
2003-06-01 1:15 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-01 0:23 ` Russ Cox
2003-06-01 1:23 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-01 0:24 ` Dan Cross
2003-05-31 23:49 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2003-06-01 5:52 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-01 8:57 ` Charles Forsyth
2003-06-01 9:06 ` lucio
2003-06-01 9:25 ` lucio
2003-06-01 15:36 ` David Presotto
2003-06-01 16:24 ` David Presotto
2003-06-02 4:14 ` lucio
2003-06-02 4:03 ` lucio
2003-06-01 22:55 ` Geoff Collyer
2003-06-01 0:28 ` William Josephson
2003-06-01 1:46 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-01 1:38 ` William K. Josephson [this message]
2003-06-01 1:57 ` Scott Schwartz
2003-06-01 2:58 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-01 2:57 ` W. Josephson
2003-06-01 4:07 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-01 15:11 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-02 11:37 ` Sam
2003-06-02 12:41 ` boyd, rounin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-08-03 4:39 Andrew Simmons
2003-07-31 17:24 Joel Salomon
2003-07-31 17:50 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-07-31 17:51 ` Sape Mullender
2003-07-31 17:53 ` rog
2003-07-31 18:03 ` jmk
2003-08-01 2:45 ` Joel Salomon
2003-08-01 2:52 ` Geoff Collyer
2003-08-01 3:42 ` jmk
2003-08-01 4:12 ` Geoff Collyer
2003-08-01 15:23 ` Jack Johnson
2003-08-01 9:03 ` Anthony Mandic
2003-08-01 15:11 ` Jack Johnson
2003-08-01 9:02 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2003-05-31 23:48 Taj Khattra
2003-05-31 23:48 ` Charles Forsyth
2003-05-31 23:50 ` Charles Forsyth
2003-05-31 23:54 ` Russ Cox
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030601013809.GA94559@mero.morphisms.net \
--to=jkw@eecs.harvard.edu \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).