Re: ...and a question (SHA1 UUIDs)

From: Ken Murchison (no email)
Date: Thu Sep 06 2007 - 10:35:48 EDT

  • Next message: Alain Spineux: "Re: Syntax for reconstruct with virtual domains?"

    David Carter wrote:
    > On Fri, 7 Sep 2007, Bron Gondwana wrote:
    >
    >>> If we go with a 'uuid_mode' option, my inclination is default it to
    >>> 'none' or 'off', so standalone servers aren't wasting CPU by doing
    >>> SHA1 (or else we couple check for 'sync_host' && 'uuid_mode' before
    >>> doing SHA1).
    >>
    >> I'd be inclined to make them two separate choices, because sha1 in the
    >> index is still very valuable for integrity checks and potentially
    >> duplicate finding (post dated "single instance store" even!)
    >
    > Agreed.
    >
    > Do we want to to rename the UUID field (CHECKSUM? SHA1?) as part of the
    > work? The original name is rather accidental, and there is obvious
    > potential for confusion with UIDs.

    That's a good point. The fact that we are leveraging the SHA1 hash as
    the UUID is coincidental. I vote for 'checksum', since the algorithm
    that we use *might* change in the future.

    On another note, we can't include LGPL SHA1 code in our distro. I have
    two alternatives:

    1. Use the SHA1 implementation in OpenSSL. This makes replication
    dependent on OpenSSL, but I've already done this with the IMAP URLAUTH
    extension, and I would assume that most sites compile with OpenSSL anyways.

    2. Use the free SHA1 reference code in RFC 3174.

    Jeff (my CMU colleague) votes for using OpenSSL, and I'm inclined to agree.

    -- 
    Kenneth Murchison
    Systems Programmer
    Project Cyrus Developer/Maintainer
    Carnegie Mellon University
    

  • Next message: Alain Spineux: "Re: Syntax for reconstruct with virtual domains?"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD