Am 25.05.20 um 11:05 schrieb Jorrit Jongma:
> No, this patch is for the whole-file checksum, the resulting checksum
> is the same regardless of the block size used when feeding the hash
> algorithm.
Understoof. My fault. Sorry.
Cheers,
Pierre
--
Please use reply-all for most replies to avoid o
No, this patch is for the whole-file checksum, the resulting checksum
is the same regardless of the block size used when feeding the hash
algorithm.
On Mon, May 25, 2020 at 10:57 AM Pierre Bernhardt via rsync
wrote:
> Will this not to produce more false negative results? This mean if
> comparing
Am 25.05.20 um 00:42 schrieb Jorrit Jongma via rsync:
> Testing showed the performance improvement to go up quickly going from
> 64 to 512 bytes, with diminishing returns above, 4096 was where it
> seemed to plateau for me. Re-used CHUNK_SIZE (32 kB) as it already
> exists and should be fine to use
When a whole-file checksum is performed, hashing was done in 64 byte
blocks, causing overhead and limiting performance.
Testing showed the performance improvement to go up quickly going from
64 to 512 bytes, with diminishing returns above, 4096 was where it
seemed to plateau for me. Re-used CHUNK_
