On Sun, Feb 26, 2017 at 8:11 PM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > But yes, SHA3-256 looks like the sane choice. Performance of hashing > is important in the sense that it shouldn't _suck_, but is largely > secondary. All my profiles on real loads (well, *my* real loads) have > shown that zlib performance is actually much more important than SHA1.
What's the zlib v.s. hash ratio on those profiles? If git is switching to another hashing function given the developments in faster compression algorithms (gzip v.s. snappy v.s. zstd v.s. lz4)[1] we'll probably switch to another compression algorithm sooner than later. Would compression still be the bottleneck by far with zstd, how about with lz4? 1. https://code.facebook.com/posts/1658392934479273/smaller-and-faster-data-compression-with-zstandard/
