On 31/08/14 12:07, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> And why I always favoured SHA1 instead of CRC. I don't have vast
> knowledge on the subject, but SHA1 seems more standardised than CRC. At
> least with the tests I have done, using various SHA1 implementations,
> they gave me consistent results.
It's
On 09/01/2014 10:12 AM, Tony Whyman wrote:
CRCs main use is with low speed modems.
They can be readily implemented in hardware and when the division
polynomial is carefully chosen can give an undetected bit error rate of
better than 1 in 10^8, which is more than sufficient for the data volume
pos
Tony Whyman wrote:
What has always surprised me is when CRCs are used outside of the
communications domain. Arithmetic checksums can give similar performance
with lower computational overhead and the same bit length. CRCs only
really have the edge with communications because the error pattern is
On 09/01/2014 10:12 AM, Tony Whyman wrote:
CRCs only
really have the edge with communications because the error pattern is
typically known for a given communications medium and the CRC can be
tuned to the media in order to give better performance.
Even in software-only applications, CRCs are used
Certainly true, but doesn't necessarily invalidate my comment.
The zip format is an interesting case and it would be of (academic)
interest to know if Phil Katz used a 32 bit CRC after researching
alternatives - or simply because CRCs are widely used.
On the other hand, if you get a bit error in
In our previous episode, Michael Schnell said:
> More characteristics that can be differ in certain applications are
> - bit count
> - starting value
> - shift count (only data block bits or data block bits plus CRC bits
- Shift direction. msbit first, lsbit first, in case of wordwise crc also
