On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:13:23PM +0100, Spam wrote: > >>>>generic bug in handling hash collisions? > >>>> > >>>> > >>>Tea hash is designed to be more resistant. > >>> > >>> > >> > >>As the example posted shows, tea doesn't look better, it generates > >>nicely-looking collisions, too. > >> > >> > > You mean, in practice you hit them, or with an artificially generated > > set of filenames intended to cause collisions you get those collisions? > > Excuse me, but do you mean that there are undocumented limits on what > files can be named to, and how many files with similar or random > names in a ReiferFS volume?
No, I'd say it's pretty well documented that reiserfs fails under certain hash collision conditions instead of continueing to work (albeit more slowly). The nature of the hash collisions must be pretty obvious if a shell script can be written to demonstrate the problem. > > This sounds bad... It's a risk assessment. What are the odds of your normal data sets hitting the bug or of someone with malicious intent introducing a demonstration program vs the performance hit of a filesystem without the problem. All filesystems will fail or suffer degraded performance under certain conditions, you need to determine what conditions are acceptable for your data. -- Chris Dukes Warning: Do not use the reflow toaster oven to prepare foods after it has been used for solder paste reflow. http://www.stencilsunlimited.com/stencil_article_page5.htm
