-Re: Number of bytes per checksum
Kihwal Lee 2011-06-24, 14:59
Doing CRC32 on a huge data block also reduces its error detection
If you need more information on this topic, this paper will be a good
On 6/24/11 9:50 AM, "Doug Cutting" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A smaller checksum interval decreases the overhead for random access.
> If one seeks to a random location, one must, on average, read and
> checksum an extra checksumInterval/2 bytes. 512 was chosen as a value
> that, with four-byte CRC32, reduced the impact on small seeks while
> increasing the storage and transmission overheads by less than 1%.
> Increasing the interval would not likely reduce the computation
> significantly, as the same number of bytes are checksummed regardless,
> but it might optimize i/o operations in some cases without harming
> random access much if this were increased to 8k or larger.
> On 06/24/2011 04:24 PM, Praveen Sripati wrote:
>> Why is the checksum done for io.bytes.per.checksum (defaults to 512)
>> instead of the complete block at once (dfs.block.size defaults to
>> 67108864)? If a block is corrupt then the entire block has to be
>> replicated anyway. Isn't it more efficient to do the checksum for
>> complete block at once?