Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Checksumming: CRC or hash?

Performance and security considerations aside, and assuming a hash function with a perfect avalanche effect, which should I use for checksumming blocks of data: CRC32 or hash truncated to N bytes? I.e. which will have a smaller probability to miss an error? Specifically:

  1. CRC32 vs. 4-byte hash
  2. CRC32 vs. 8-byte hash
  3. CRC64 vs. 8-byte hash

Data blocks are to be transferred over network and stored on disk, repeatedly. Blocks can be 1KB to 1GB in size.

As far as I understand, CRC32 can detect up to 32 bit flips with 100% reliability, but after that its reliability approaches 1-2^(-32) and for some patterns is much worse. A perfect 4-byte hash reliability is always 1-2^(-32), so go figure.

8-byte hash should have a much better overall reliability (2^(-64) chance to miss an error), so should it be preferred over CRC32? What about CRC64?

I guess the answer depends on type of errors that might be expected in such sort of operation. Are we likely to see sparse 1-bit flips or massive block corruptions? Also, given that most storage and networking hardware implements some sort of CRC, should not accidental bit flips be taken care of already?

like image 835
ayurchen Avatar asked Jan 26 '13 10:01

ayurchen


People also ask

Is CRC the same as hash?

CRC is the acronym for Cyclical Redundancy Checking. It is a type of algorithm known as a "hash". A hash algorithm accepts variable-length input and produces a fixed-length output which uniquely represents the input data. The hash is usually much shorter in length than the data it represents.

Is CRC a cryptographic hash?

Definition(s): A type of checksum algorithm that is not a cryptographic hash but is used to implement data integrity service where accidental changes to data are expected.

Which is better CRC or checksum?

A CRC or cyclic redundancy check is based on division instead of addition. The error detection capabilities of a CRC make it a much stronger checksum and, therefore, often worth the price of additional computational complexity.

Is CRC faster than SHA?

CRC32 is faster and the hash is only 32bits long. Use it when you just want a quick and light checksum. CRC is used in ethernet.


1 Answers

Only you can say whether 1-2-32 is good enough or not for your application. The error detection performance between a CRC-n and n bits from a good hash function will be very close to the same, so pick whichever one is faster. That is likely to be the CRC-n.

Update:

The above "That is likely to be the CRC-n" is only somewhat likely. It is not so likely if very high performance hash functions are used. In particular, CityHash appears to be very nearly as fast as a CRC-32 calculated using the Intel crc32 hardware instruction! I tested three CityHash routines and the Intel crc32 instruction on a 434 MB file. The crc32 instruction version (which computes a CRC-32C) took 24 ms of CPU time. CityHash64 took 55 ms, CityHash128 60 ms, and CityHashCrc128 50 ms. CityHashCrc128 makes use of the same hardware instruction, though it does not compute a CRC.

In order to get the CRC-32C calculation that fast, I had to get fancy with three crc32 instructions on three separate buffers in order to make use of the three arithmetic logic units in parallel in a single core, and then writing the inner loop in assembler. CityHash is pretty damned fast. If you don't have the crc32 instruction, then you would be hard-pressed to compute a 32-bit CRC as fast as a CityHash64 or CityHash128.

Note however that the CityHash functions would need to be modified for this purpose, or an arbitrary choice would need to be made in order to define a consistent meaning for the CityHash value on large streams of data. The reason is that those functions are not set up to accept buffered data, i.e. feeding the functions a chunk at a time and expecting to get the same result as if the entire set of data were fed to the function at once. The CityHash functions would need to modified to update an intermediate state.

The alternative, and what I did for the quick and dirty testing, is to use the Seed versions of the functions where I would use the CityHash from the previous buffer as the seed for the next buffer. The problem with that is that the result is then dependent on the buffer size. If you feed CityHash different size buffers with this approach, you get different hash values.

Another Update four years later:

Even faster is the xxhash family. I would now recommend that over a CRC for a non-cryptographic hash.

like image 151
Mark Adler Avatar answered Oct 22 '22 11:10

Mark Adler