On Sunday, January 31, 2021, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On my Intel i7 laptop, xxhash is a small but clear performance win over
crc32c:
$ ./hash-speedtest 10000000
Block size: 4096
Iterations: 10000000
Implementation: builtin
NULL-NOP: cycles: 1372543560, c/i 137
NULL-MEMCPY: cycles: 2844174884, c/i 284
CRC32C: cycles: 9673117404, c/i 967
XXHASH: cycles: 7129819594, c/i 712
SHA256: cycles: 649914613520, c/i 64991
BLAKE2b: cycles: 153513008046, c/i 15351
And I'm given to understand that this is even more the case on newer CPUs.
Plus, it's 64 bit instead of 32 bit. The 256-bit algorithms are obviously
much, much slower and probably not right for a default, but should we
consider making xxhash the default for Fedora Linux systems with btrfs?
Comparing the hash algorithms in isolation doesn't mean much - does it make a difference if you try various file system workloads with the different algorithms?
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Fedora Project Leader
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of- conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists. fedoraproject.org
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
