Re: New hash contest by NIST, similair to AES competition

Jean-Luc Cooke <jlcooke@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
I'd say a computationally expentive hash is permittable into the 100
cycle/byte range.

That is much slower than a modern hard disk, even a single drive, much
less a RAID.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
    ... Not a lot slower, but still slower -- and you know ... Log files and data files on separate raid ... OS and Log array is RAID 1 on channel 0, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: SQL Server 2000 Performance - 10K vs. 15K
    ... Not a lot slower, but still slower -- and you know ... Log files and data files on separate raid ... OS and Log array is RAID 1 on channel 0, ...
    (microsoft.public.sqlserver.setup)
  • Re: RAID for backup. RAID 5 or RAID 1?
    ... > probably is a bit slower then internal harddisks. ... >>> Should I go for RAID 5 or RAID 1? ... >>> Marshall ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • Re: [SLE] is Raid 1 (mirror) so slow ?
    ... I want to use RAID 5 using 3 HD but this will cost me more. ... Software RAID level 1 is slower than 1 harddisk? ... Writing and Reading ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Raid and SBS 2003
    ... Writes can be slower but reads are about the same speed as RAID 0 ... > Such is NOT slower than writing to single disk if a hardware RAID ... >> then compute the parity and stripe it across the lot of disks as well ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)