fwiw, we don't have amd64 servers. :) They are 64-bit capable, but we're running 32-bit Linux on them.
-ZP On Oct 17, 2008, at 4:34 PM, zooko wrote: > Folks: > > I just sent this note to DJB. It isn't personal, and is probably of > interest to some people on this list. > > By the way, I updated (for hopefully the very last time) the graphs > in http://allmydata.org/~zooko/lafs.pdf . It shows that there are > now 9.5 TB of user data stored on the Tahoe grid operated by > allmydata.com. > > Regards, > > Zooko > > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: zooko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Date: October 17, 2008 17:30:10 PM MDT >> To: "D. J. Bernstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Subject: Tiger in eBASH, and also check out my cool project >> >> Dear DJB: >> >> I'm a professional engineer who uses cryptography, and I very much >> appreciate your contributions to the field. This includes your >> benchmarking work -- thanks for that! >> >> I have been considering switching from SHA-256 to Tiger in my >> secure filesystem application. One reason is that Tiger is >> signficantly faster on our amd64 servers (although I have not yet >> measured the performance in the context of our actual >> application). Another reason is that we have an overall intended >> crypto strength of 96 bits -- we intend to switch to ECDSA with 192- >> bit public keys, and if we use SHA-256 for key derivation then we >> would truncate the output to 192-bits, which makes me worry a >> little. I feel that Tiger-192 is probably safer, as well as >> faster, than SHA-256 % 192 for key-derivation. For file hashing, >> it seems better to me to use a 192-bit hash function to match 192- >> bit digital signatures than to use a 256-bit hash function. >> >> (The motivation for this unusual decision to have a 96-bit crypto >> strength is included in my paper, below.) >> >> Sean O'Neill's mysterious tests [1] rate Tiger as the only hash >> function which has four times as many rounds as his tests can >> distinguish from random (if I understand the idea behind that web >> page). >> >> Anyway, the reason I'm writing to you is to request that you >> include Tiger in eBASH. In addition to possibly helping out >> working engineers like me who are considering using Tiger, this >> will also give a good bar for the SHA-3 cryptographers to measure >> their works against. There's nothing like a working example to >> focus people's minds. >> >> I've attached the 6-page summary of my filesystem [2], due to be >> presented in two weeks at the Storage, Security, and Survivability >> Workshop after ACM CCS 2008. >> >> See also my post to the hash-forum list a few months ago, which >> claims that almost no practical, deployed big-data tools use >> SHA-256. My filesystem is an exception, but I'm currently >> considering joining the rest of the big-data tools in using a >> faster hash function. >> >> http://zooko.com/sha256_is_too_slow.html >> >> Thanks! >> >> Regards, >> >> Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn >> >> [1] http://defectoscopy.com/results.html >> [2] http://allmydata.org/~zooko/lafs.pdf >> --- >> http://allmydata.org -- Tahoe, the Least-Authority Filesystem >> http://allmydata.com -- back up all your files for $10/month >> > <lafs.pdf>_______________________________________________ > tahoe-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
