This just in, all the data in the world successfully moved with rsync just a coincidence.
On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 11:34 AM, Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 04:13:41PM +0000, hru...@gmail.com wrote: > > Marc Espie <es...@nerim.net> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 03:09:48PM +0000, hru...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > A completely other thing is to conclude that two *arbitrary* pieces > of > > > > data are the same only because they have the same hash. Arbitrary > > > > means here that the one was not a copy of the other. And this is what > > > > rsync seems to do as far as I understand the wikipedia web-page. > > > > > > The probability of an electrical failure in your hard drive causing > > > it to munge the file, or of a bug in the software using that file > > > is much higher than this happening. > > > > This is a conjecture. Do you have a proof that the probability is so > > small? For me it is difficult to accept it. Is this conjecture used > > elsewhere? > > Oh, for crying out loud. > > There's a REPORT included with rsync, that describes the algorithm. > > Rsync uses 128 bits checksums to ensure files are not corrupted. The 16 > bit > checksums are just for *identifying blocks for transfer*. The end check is > *of course* a full checksum. > > I consider 1/2^128 to be *vanishingly small*. It's ways more likely for a > cpu or memory bug to occur. Cosmic ray radiation, or something, which you > generally don't consider to be a big problem, is ways more probably to > affect > your memory, and storage. > > > I dont like rsync and similars!!!! > > Just because you're irrational doesn't mean we have to cater to your > irrational fears.
