Gnutella Forums  

Go Back   Gnutella Forums > Gnutella News and Gnutelliums Forums > General Gnutella Development Discussion
Register FAQ The Twelve Commandments Members List Calendar Arcade Find the Best VPN Today's Posts

General Gnutella Development Discussion For general discussion about Gnutella development.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old January 11th, 2002
Moak's Avatar
Guest
 
Join Date: September 7th, 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 816
Moak is flying high
Post Hashs in Queries (SMALL != HUGE)

Hi,
I thought more about hashs in Gnutella Queries. I personally think they should be as small as possible, because I expect a increased Query/Queryhit traffic from new clients with features like automatic resume and multisegmented downloads. While automatic requeries are a key technology for those features, the Query traffic especially for hash wil increase. Perhaps it will be also necesarry to group multiple searches together into a single message (multiple searches in one Gnutella Query to avoid repeated sending of Gnutella descriptor header, 23 bytes + more repeated payload). A small query/hash will be necessary in my eyes, as small as possible.

Different people have different ideas of a small hash. It should be still unique enough to fit our needs, common are AFAIK those suggestions:

* CRC-32, size 32 bit (256 hashs/KB *) [1]
* MD5, size 128 bit (64 hashs/KB) [2]
* SHA1, size 160 bit (51.2 hashs/KB) [3]
* Tiger, size 192 bit or truncated to 128 or 160 (42.6 hashs/KB) [4]
* Snefru, 256 bit (32 hashs/KB) [5]

I'm not sure about which hash to use (prefered). There seems to be nothing between 32 bit (CRC-32) and 128 bit (MD5) length. CRC32 will be not unique enough within a typical Gnutella horizon, better start to use MD5 or higher. Is it possible to truncate a big hash to e.g. 64 bits, does this make sense? I'm not familiar with cryptography, this is only a short summary... perhaps someone else wants to add some more qualified comments? :-)

At least the hash should be IMHO pure binary in inside the query (not BASE32 encoded which blows up the size again), in HTTP headers it might be BaseWhatever encoded to gain highest HTTP/1.x compatibilty. I think indexing speed is secondary [6]. Indexing local shared files can be performed in background on first startup (meanwhile the client does not answer with own hashs, but can allready search for).

* = pure binary hash, not included are descriptor headers or other protocol overhead

[1] CRC-32 - http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1510.txt (ISO 3309)
[2] MD5 - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1321.html
[3] SHA1 - http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3174.html
[4] Tiger - http://www.cs.technion.ac.il/~biham/Reports/Tiger/
[5] Snefru - http://www.faqs.org/faqs/cryptography-faq/part07/
[6] Hash Indexing Speed - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_gdf/message/1970

Last edited by Moak; January 11th, 2002 at 01:39 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gnutella Protocoll v0.7 Proposal Moak General Gnutella Development Discussion 41 August 17th, 2002 10:55 AM
gnutella development plans Iamnacho General Gnutella Development Discussion 11 March 9th, 2002 06:21 PM
My Proposal for XoloX!!! Unregistered User Experience 1 February 6th, 2002 08:11 AM
Xolox and Gnutella development Moak Rants 6 November 25th, 2001 06:05 AM
---a Radical Proposal--- Unregistered General Gnutella / Gnutella Network Discussion 0 September 21st, 2001 12:08 PM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.

Copyright © 2020 Gnutella Forums.
All Rights Reserved.