Re: Re: Adler-32 Checksum
Thomas Dreibholz <[email protected]> Mon, 4 Jul 2005 10:33:47 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.rserpool |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 01 July 2005 16:32, James Carlson wrote: > Thomas Dreibholz writes: > > On Thursday 30 June 2005 17:06, Peter Lei wrote: > > > I'm not sure what your concern is here. The Internet checksum > > > is just the ones's complement of (one's complement sum + carry). > > > That's two additional steps over a simple XOR sum. > > > > XOR is computationally cheaper than addition. It works bit-wise and does > > not need a carry. > > Was that meant as a serious comment? I don't think that sort of > consideration applies to _any_ system built in the past 40 years or > so. XOR is cheaper, although not significantly on today's computers. > So if the probability of detecting handlespace inconsistencies > would be the same for the Internet checksum and XOR, XOR would be the > preferable solution. But unfortunately, the inconsistency detection probability seems to be lower for XOR. Example: Pool "TEST", PE #1000 Pool "TEST", PE #1001 Pool "TEST", PE #1002 Pool "TEST", PE #1003 Since the amount of PEs in the pool is even, the PHs' XOR chechsum would cancel out (x XOR x XOR x XOR x == 0); therefore the checksum would effectively be computed over the PE IDs only. Using the Internet checksum, the PHs - regardless of even or odd number of PEs in a pool - would always contribute to the checksum. Therefore, the Internet checksum is the preferred solution. Best regards - -- ======================================================================= Dipl.-Inform. Thomas Dreibholz University of Essen, Room ES210 Inst. for Experimental Mathematics Ellernstraße 29 Computer Networking Technology Group D-45326 Essen/Germany - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.exp-math.uni-essen.de/~dreibh ======================================================================= -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCyPRv32BbsHYPLWURAnfdAJ4xAF/mcRmFZ4h1HEPdRANKuWkJmQCePrdg 1GxKWH8tQgEQDdYoypNhTFU= =UgQJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----