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=xP
	wabOET8v0QXkKNnUqrepNYfvw1rwY10QCGvk7LaVyzo1AQBFuDn6mb289uX/U4OA
	lOxYxymqVH6YhAyVKIlx6y0Qrl2Wxb7xmWb4rYfspSSGot/Mu5CLp/QNZifwJcZO
	ura7gYEJskmtfIoALn/BuAojqb/JLN/AdVUoafSF8=
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=zlQlZ2/n
	FPMogwrPV+x17dDFNFo=; b=rlXutbx4dxnVoZ369AstsQGgKKMoRLuLMjtynP4b
	36sNQrv6WbiDs/XHoToyljcVGxp4CB3/tY569L6tiJXTZFMwSXT1puGOdYGbujKw
	sngBRcvg3Ehm8MVrn0LfH+R/bOenaPnT6vw9dw0qTO+5t0OMZk2uW38itGlN9NwT
	h5c=
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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Obviously, reads, 10m, Hx-languages-length:1578
X-HELO: mail-lb0-f180.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=8J324+Ip7s5G30y8Xzs293TwxoCHYXwRwTYVamlBUjk=;        b=bgpETcpgSSVk6Gfcw3mJ194npM1jTVCSvabL321eqNQ/VPPzchSmUI1xyD9+tnlQro         9Tr1rWtn1uspT/1/2DHZjTsguyoax/TvlUrsHM3Pin+kIfqgGmbDTJ0TYPqfJ4vnSCRV         gSwjcjy5gBdi9vnBVHFQcTXt8FWI/dSqrmw6g+2GTp6c97GbTtpHGsRQgWPNBne6yWNp         cE86TY1a1C53P5i8Tg8RMEUwHj6FmO7WmWIidsYs91Sc40+kDIPv13PwGfVtTGwm45xN         3v0VlSGuZhZs2QOXMCFuDzqaCcn3AC25/HnXZtypnzfoHBVmL3p8f6cvu1SkTmAs95JP         wYoA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIs9s1SJJ3+IPCK7vfDfZwu1zTvePw2V7P5MUdgSD3I19nIOS0iJoLhDIUsja4CiPkDqYKX8kmES579qQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.126.1 with SMTP id mu1mr3425062lbb.70.1458595662484; Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+2x6-KAcNBXKk92sEEs_7313iiu75aqJrs9oP4yuUBb1Dn0=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <0D835E9B9CD07F40A48423F80D3B5A702EAE633E AT USA7109MB022 DOT na DOT xerox DOT net>	<CACoZoo0wFReBJha8AwzCAHSWKhEL1ALKH5exmhE-8P5fEj6+Kg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>	<CA+2x6-KAcNBXKk92sEEs_7313iiu75aqJrs9oP4yuUBb1Dn0=w AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:27:42 -0400
Message-ID: <CACoZoo3dJXT6JU8mY0kMsoM4sGGcdqgocapFb=AtUfMg1ZXF3Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: cksum giving inconsistent results on network drive
From: Erik Soderquist <ErikSoderquist AT gmail DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-IsSubscribed: yes

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Nem W Schlecht  wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Erik Soderquist
>> I expect if you did a capture of the traffic, you'd find the traffic
>> itself has inconsistent data...
>
> 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.

One random bit flipped in a stream of over 6.6M bits (not counting
overhead) would not change the byte count unless that bit happened to
be in the file description data rather than the file data
(statistically unlikely), but would affect the cksum results.  To
date, I've never seen the byte count off when I had network problems
corrupting files on SMB or NFS (outside of complete connection loss),
but I've certainly had corrupt reads and writes of the actual file
data.

In the presented sampling, 6 out of 11 cksum results are consistent,
indicating that the average failure rate is slightly better than 1 in
10M bits.

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

I would also be interested in these results, as it would focus or rule
out cksum as a potential culprit.  (Obviously from my previous post, I
have my suspicions already, but confirmation is still the best
approach).

I would also be interested in if you can do the same
cksum/md5sum/shasum on the server side and use some kind of semaphore
to trigger the check and get the results.

-- Erik

--
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