On 4/10/2017 6:36 AM, Mateusz Viste wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:56:17 -0500, Rugxulo wrote:
>> It would be interesting to see some benchmark numbers for that (for
>> various specific tools, 8086, 386, etc).
> Just for the fun of it, I did some quick measures on my 386SX PC,
> computing various checksums of a 2 MiB file. Results below.
> BSUM (by Mateusz Viste) :  6.0s (100%)
> CRC32 (by Joe Forster)  :  8.5s  (70%)
> CRC32 (by Colin Plumb)  : 26.7s  (22%)
> MD5 (by Colin Plumb)    : 52.9s  (11%)
> SHA1 (by Colin Plumb)   : 85.7s   (7%)
> BSUM is the fastest, which is no surprise since the algorithm is
> extremely simple (4 CPU instructions). The CRC32 computation by Joe
> Forster is surprisingly fast as well. It's 30% slower than bsum and the
> binary is 4x times larger (and I suppose the memory usage is also much
> higher) but that's still quite impressive for a 32-bit checksum.
Well, most of all, it's kind of comparing apples and oranges. Those 
benchmark tests mean nothing if you don't compare them with the number 
of possible collisions you get for each of them.
Though that doesn't mean that there aren't use cases where "simple does 
>> Splurge on the memory, give it 32 kb or so. It'll "probably" be faster
>> with a bigger buffer.
Nope, won't do a thing. Didn't do much good "back in the days" to use 
anything over 16KB and it is even less relevant on modern hard drives 
with MBs of cache. Or SSDs...


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
Freedos-user mailing list

Reply via email to