Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Allow other checksum options #4

Open
mandresm opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 2 comments
Open

Allow other checksum options #4

mandresm opened this issue Jan 29, 2024 · 2 comments

Comments

@mandresm
Copy link
Contributor

At the moment imohash is the default and users cannot select another type of checksum. One should be able to have an option in the cli of the different checksums commands to switch to md5 for example

@siligam
Copy link
Collaborator

siligam commented Feb 2, 2024

This feature of having a choice of selecting a desired hashing algorithm may or may not be a good idea.

When comparing 2 csv files, the tool needs to ensure if same type of hashing algorithm is used in producing these checksum files otherwise the results of comparing them will be garbage. This logic is not yet implemented as the tool offers only imohash.

For a given site and pool, the use may want to produce checksums using imohash and md5 , then the question is how to name the file. Following the naming convention checksum_<SITE>_<PROJECTNAME>.csv, they need to placed in separate directories. What should be the entry in config file in this case?

opting for slow md5 means that users are forced to submit the job to slum as running this task on the login node will occupy a lot of resources for a long time and might render unusable to other users. Most likely these jobs get killed by the admins without any prior notice.

Having said that, I wish to provide users have choice of choosing their desired algorithm.

@mandresm
Copy link
Contributor Author

mandresm commented Feb 2, 2024

We've decided to don't allow md5 for remote-chesums but only for prepare-runscript

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants