Displaying 2 results from an estimated 2 matches for "block_i".
Did you mean:
block_r
2023 Feb 28
1
Checksums and other verification
...t; this level of overlap is beneficial. Otherwise, this extra reader thread
> would just add more thrashing, and we'd be better off with a separate
> read-through once writing is complete.
In my mind I'm wondering if there's any mathematical result that lets
you combine each hash(block_i) into the final hash(block[1..N])
without needing to compute the hash of each block in order.
(This is what blkhash solves, but unfortunately the output isn't
compatible with standard hashes.)
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my pro...
2023 Feb 28
1
Checksums and other verification
On 2/27/23 17:44, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 08:42:23AM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
>> Or intentionally choose a hash that can be computed out-of-order, such
>> as a Merkle Tree. But we'd need a standard setup for all parties to
>> agree on how the hash is to be computed and checked, if it is going to
>> be anything more than just a linear hash