Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Sat, Dec 01, 2012 at 09:50:29 -0500: > On Sat, Dec 1, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > > On 01.12.2012 14:31, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > And, yes, that clearly could all be done in time for 1.8 without > > > jeopardizing the timelines one tiny bit. =P > > > > Eep ... :) > > > > > > Another thing I've been thinking about is this: Why are we using SHA1 > > checksums on the server and on the wire for consistency checks when a > > 64-bit CRC would do the job just as well, and 15 times cheaper? And > > banging my head against the wall for not thinking of this 10 years ago. > > > > I can sort of understand the use of SHA1 as a content index for > > client-side pristine files. On the server, however ... dunno. Maybe we > > could design something akin to what the rsync protocol does, but for > > repository-wide data storage. Could be quite tricky to achieve locality, > > however. > > > > The one thing that's nice with using SHA checksums is we're using it > everywhere. It makes protocol debugging a *lot* easier - since we also > used SHA checksums as the content index, that makes it easier to compare > what we recorded in libsvn_wc to what was sent by the server. If we > diverged the checksums algorithms, it'd be hard to do a quick comparison > visually (do the checksums match?) without actually running the checksum > yourself!
If that's the problem, have the server send the recorded-in-fs sha1 checksum as an attribute that the client ignores. (in SVN_DEBUG builds only) > > So, I think we optimized for humans here...and I'm okay with that. We can > always build faster processors...and take advantage of parallelism. =) > > There I go off on a tangent again. > > > > *grin* -- justin
