On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 11:34:46AM -0800, John Williams wrote: > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 12:23 AM, Holger Hoffstätte > <holger.hoffstae...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Would there be room for a compromise with e.g. 128 bits? > > For example, Spooky V2 hash is 128 bits and is very fast. It is > noncryptographic, but it is more than adequate for data checksums. > > http://burtleburtle.net/bob/hash/spooky.html > > SnapRAID uses this hash, and it runs at about 15 GB/sec on my machine > (Xeon E3-1270 V2 @ 3.50Ghz)
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll take a look. Btw, it's not in kernel yet, is it? thanks, -liubo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
