El 06/01/2013 16:04, "Pascal de Bruijn" <[email protected]> escribió:
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Lars Wirzenius <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 02:27:31PM +0100, Jose Carlos Garcia Sogo wrote:
> >> It wouldn't be bad having a way to do what you ask for. What would be
the
> >> overhead of computing a hash for a full large raw?
> >
> > On my laptop, with an Intel Core 2 Duo CPU at 1.86 GHz, md5sum can do
> > about 250 MB/s:
>
> Well people do use older/slower hardware.
This could be run in a back thread as similarity to avoid the overhead
while importing.
>
> > (dd if=/dev/zero bs=1M count=1024 2> /dev/null) | pv | md5sum >
/dev/null
> >
> > sha1sum is 189 MB/s (for curiosity, cat is 680 MB/s).
> >
> > That sounds like the checksum overhead would be insignificant compared
> > to the speed from reading from CF, SD, or directly from camera.
>
> And a lot of people manually copy/rename their files before importing
> them in-place from their harddisk/ssd.
>
> So it's not quite a no-brainer :(
It doesn't need to run on import. Once we have the md5sum we can find
images that have been moved after they have been imported. For that, I if
they have a xmp we don't even need to recalculate the md5sum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS,
MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current
with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft
MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_123012
_______________________________________________
Darktable-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/darktable-users
