X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=mX
	yzXDZLqhUlaZvp0KbQjoLMr2ZKL/FkQxnGcL/q+pnl2xngW+W9bIFlJ9BA2aVNcx
	cjKqlhuJEHDL17f9dWQJTXHuWKF/3JvKpCoSCGD4Woxji2xqyf5Xd9Wcb0rygNuW
	7KrsCGtcrCXVjtE5YgpW+Yt7b/GG1qd6MaVvGdwjU=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
	:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; s=default; bh=9ulm9BZZ
	RQawKGUQGW6RRUnmK9c=; b=Mx0KFddQqYchsikQDFOGdmokvRTXMsAuEhKV73SX
	Mpfdp276KUAzdf5nC5uzsnIl3kfHp47SPidcO/vhQJouL/RW9X9VANRi5D69xN51
	fFxqicNHdg69x7Gww+VGK9RH3G5bsbMfnx9EJZk976quqhJspDNYvGnhz26nRpJL
	McQ=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=ErikSoderquistgmailcom, sk:ErikSod, eriksoderquistgmailcom, soderquist
X-HELO: mail-qk0-f172.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date         :message-id:subject:from:to;        bh=08NWUJUU2q7rI74B+6pII5w8g4hElUvR2lIW0oXGEMU=;        b=jcDGpH4qw0Elu0nbnN7TXyDlcn4OVn6Q8Lld6w/4e5HeB7LhrrQtx/NT/Ps/IxeXAl         SUVBPQPXtUQOwt/5vdneqfLrljTfGIFqOYo48IDFVlt63oiBjmem9Ue172nUU0Q8Q9pc         JHQfzKE05l2xoIbXC4DYN5LoHDl7i4QESBwhUmW+U2K195xM07a4CHRlUlM0iQ7K7YYo         miAA/fxlxTJLdgU9uUGVxSFWDmiwPiaNL1Z2v6MkfP7au3xg2xwe3+f7G3UxAJUzw0Ur         f1wInWzQ/XDvUMTI8Yh8Enqkh7DfyyvqGwW5iT4HMS5f/c20EZAtXgEz4sQgS5IBxWXh         LH5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIrIQq01PWC21Nj1n50JuIEhGl59F0DvfedgD5kDc7ATn7onBblMqFp8NaYFAC3mzHyd6DEdJMY2fs8wQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.43.35 with SMTP id r35mr42747785qkh.64.1458594594698; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:09:54 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CACoZoo0wFReBJha8AwzCAHSWKhEL1ALKH5exmhE-8P5fEj6+Kg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0D835E9B9CD07F40A48423F80D3B5A702EAE633E AT USA7109MB022 DOT na DOT xerox DOT net>	<CACoZoo0wFReBJha8AwzCAHSWKhEL1ALKH5exmhE-8P5fEj6+Kg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:09:54 -0500
Message-ID: <CA+2x6-KAcNBXKk92sEEs_7313iiu75aqJrs9oP4yuUBb1Dn0=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cksum giving inconsistent results on network drive
From: Nem W Schlecht <nem AT emptec DOT com>
To: The Cygwin Mailing List <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Erik Soderquist
<ErikSoderquist AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:21 PM, Nellis, Kenneth  wrote:
>> I'm seeing inconsistent results with cksum, with repeated
>> executions on the same file giving different results.
>> Now, I suspect I won't get much sympathy because I am
>> accessing the remote file through a "stone_age_old"*
>> (QNX4) Samba server through my Q: drive, but if there's
>> a solution to this, I'd love to hear it as I use
>> cksum to verify correct transfer of files.
>
> I expect if you did a capture of the traffic, you'd find the traffic
> itself has inconsistent data...
>
> My first suspicion is that there is very little you can do from the
> cygwin side outside of something like doing 5 consecutive tests and
> take the most consistent result.

If the traffic was bad, I'd suspect the byte count to be off as well,
but if the byte count is consistent (which it is here), then the
checksums should all be the same.

Have you tried a different hashing program, like md5sum or shasum, to
see if you still get inconsistent results?


-- 
Nem W Schlecht

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple