In , Arthur Bela
wrote:
>HDD#1
>HDD#2
>
>I copy files between HDD#1 and HDD#2.
>
>When i finish, i need a quick "hasing method" - i just want to check,
>that the copy was 100% ok.
Hashing is not 100%. It's probabilistic. If your hash results is N bits,
your data longer than N bits, and your ha
Arthur Bela:
>
> I copy files between HDD#1 and HDD#2.
>
> When i finish, i need a quick "hasing method" - i just want to check,
> that the copy was 100% ok.
Why do you want to hash? Hashing implies reading both trees completely,
computing hashes and comparing these hashes. It might be faster to
Arthur writes:
> I copy files between HDD#1 and HDD#2.
> When i finish, i need a quick "hasing method" - i just want to check,
> that the copy was 100% ok.
Use rsync. It does checksums.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubs
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 2:17 PM, Arthur Bela wrote:
> HDD#1
> HDD#2
>
> I copy files between HDD#1 and HDD#2.
>
> When i finish, i need a quick "hasing method" - i just want to check,
> that the copy was 100% ok.
>
Comparing the hashes of two files is not enough to be certain that
they have ident
HDD#1
HDD#2
I copy files between HDD#1 and HDD#2.
When i finish, i need a quick "hasing method" - i just want to check,
that the copy was 100% ok.
md5sum, sha256sum is slow -> are there any "very fast" hash algoritms?
- just for checking if the copied file is corrupt or not [i just need
to know,
5 matches
Mail list logo