Quoting Ciaran McCreesh at 15/04/2009-20:50:49(+0100): > > So, RMD160's take about 1m30s. SHA1's take about 1:10. But, I'd > > expect computing both in a row on the same files would have a lower > > total time, thanks to disk cache. Are there other hashes that get > > computed? > > We do whatever's in the Manifest. > > You might want to try c4954637fe7bb3 and see how much of a difference > it makes for you. In some situations it might reduce the time required > by a large amount.
Is it reasonable to only do one of the hashes instead? Filesize check + 1 checksum should be sufficient. If RMD160 is available for a file, check it and that's it. Otherwise check SHA256 if availabe. Otherwise check SHA1 if availabe. Otherwise check MD5 if availabe. ... etc. -- /\ Georgi Georgiev /\ Finally, Zippy drives his 1958 RAMBLER /\ \/ [email protected] \/ METROPOLITAN into the faculty dining room. \/ /\ http://www.gg3.net/ /\ /\ _______________________________________________ paludis-user mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pioto.org/mailman/listinfo/paludis-user
