[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4810?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15496551#comment-15496551
 ] 

Michael Marth commented on OAK-4810:
------------------------------------

Re implementation: could this be a special case of OAK-3140? In OAK-3140 
several DSs are defined. In this case, the SHA-256 DS would be read-write and 
the SHA-1 DS would be read-only.

> FileDataStore: support SHA-2
> ----------------------------
>
>                 Key: OAK-4810
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-4810
>             Project: Jackrabbit Oak
>          Issue Type: New Feature
>          Components: blob
>            Reporter: Thomas Mueller
>
> The FileDataStore currently uses SHA-1, but that algorithm is deprecated. We 
> should support other algorithms as well (mainly SHA-256).
> Migration should be painless (no long downtime). I think default for writing 
> (if not configured explicitly) could still be SHA-1. But when reading, 
> SHA-256 should also be supported (depending on the identifier). That way, the 
> new Oak version for all repositories (in a cluster + shared datastore) can be 
> installed "slowly".
> After all repositories are running with the new Oak version, the 
> configuration for SHA-256 can be enabled. That way, SHA-256 is used for new 
> binaries. Both SHA-1 and SHA-256 are supported for reading.
> One potential downside is deduplication would suffer a bit if a new Blob with 
> same content is added again as digest based match would fail. That can be 
> mitigated by computing 2 types of digest if need arises. The downsides are 
> some additional file operations and CPU, and slower migration to SHA-256.
> Some other open questions: 
> * While we are at it, it might makes senses to additionally support SHA-3 and 
> other algorithms (make it configurable). But the length of the identifier 
> alone might then not be enough information to know what algorithm is used, so 
> maybe add a prefix.
> * The number of subdirectory levels: should we keep it as is, or should we 
> reduce it (for example one level less).



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to