Tom Lane wrote: > "Mark Cave-Ayland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Wow, a 64-bit CRC does seem excessive, especially when going back to Zmodem >>days where a 50-100k file seemed to be easily protected by a 32-bit CRC. I'm >>sure there are some error rates somewhere dependent upon the polynomial and >>the types of error detected.... Try the following link towards the bottom: >>http://www.ee.unb.ca/tervo/ee4253/crc.htm for some theory on detection rates >>vs. CRC size. > > > When the CRC size was decided, I recall someone arguing that it would > really make a difference to have 1-in-2^64 chance of failure rather than > 1-in-2^32. I was dubious about this at the time, but didn't have any > evidence showing that we shouldn't go for 64. I suppose we ought to try > the same example with a 32-bit CRC and see how much it helps.
Continuing this why not a 16-bit then ? Regards Gaetano Mendola ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly