blake3 vs. fletcher4

[mabod]

Hello,

I am trying to understand the benefits of blake3 vs. fletcher4 checksums. But I dont get it.
What is a good reason to move to blake3? Performance wise I believe fletcher4 is still faster. Is that right?

[IvanVolosyuk]

The fletcher4 checksum should be the fastest by far. I believe the only reason to switch to a different checksum algorithm is if you use encryption or dedup. I might be wrong though. ;)

…

On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 6:55 PM mabod ***@***.***> wrote: Hello, I am trying to understand the benefits of blake3 vs. fletcher4 checksums. But I dont get it. What is a good reason to move to blake3? Performance wise I believe fletcher4 is still faster. Is that right? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#15421>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABXQ6HN2N47VBWW7CRJI4JTYADMG3AVCNFSM6AAAAAA6GXUYRWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43ERDJONRXK43TNFXW4OZVG42TENJSGE> . You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[robn]

Blake3 is a cryptographic hash. Unless you need cryptographically-strong checksums (either you’re using dedup, or you have a particular application that requires it), then the default fletcher4 is still faster.

[rincebrain]

nopwrite is the reason I use edonr (or, eventually when I run 2.2, blake3, probably) on my things.

It's a very specialized use case, but when it's helpful, it's really helpful.