Evgeniy, On Thu, 01 Jun 2006, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 12:46:08AM -0600, Brian F. G. Bidulock ([EMAIL > PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > Since pseudo-randomness affects both folded and not folded hash > > > distribution, it can not end up in different results. > > > > Yes it would, so to rule out pseudo-random effects the pseudo- > > random number generator must be removed. > > > > > > > > You are right that having test with 2^48 values is really interesting, > > > but it will take ages on my test machine :) > > > > Try a usable subset; no pseudo-random number generator. > > I've run it for 2^30 - the same result: folded and not folded Jenkins > hash behave the same and still both results produce exactly the same > artifacts compared to XOR hash. But not without the pseudo-random number generation... ? > > Btw, XOR hash, as completely stateless, can be used to show how > Linux pseudo-random generator works for given subset - it's average of > distribution is very good. But its distribution might auto-correlate with the Jenkins function. The only way to be sure is to remove the pseudo-random number generator. Just try incrementing from, say, 10.0.0.0:10000 up, resetting port number to 10000 at 16000, and just incrementing the IP address when the port number wraps, instead of pseudo-random, through 2^30 loops for both. If the same artifacts emerge, I give in. Can you show the same artifacts for jenkins_3word? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
