Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations

From: Gaetano Mendola <mendola(at)bigfoot(dot)com>
To: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Subject: Re: Cost of XLogInsert CRC calculations
Date: 2005-03-07 17:45:57
Message-ID: 422C9355.4040504@bigfoot.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> 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

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jim Buttafuoco 2005-03-07 18:03:50 Recording vacuum/analyze/dump times
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2005-03-07 17:34:08 Re: anoncvs unreachable?