|
|
|
|
|
|
by nemo1618
3331 days ago
|
|
|
Thanks for clarifying. What is the use case for 500000+200000 blocks/shards though? I can't imagine a real-world scenario that requires more than ~100 parity blocks. Even still, it would be a big deal if FastECC is 10x+ faster at something like 20+60 blocks. |
|
|
When you want to protect files on disk, f.e. 30 GB video, you may want to use as much RAM as possible to increase protection level. So if you have 8 GB RAM, and use 4 KB data blocks, you can fit one million blocks into RAM easily. That's one possible usecase, and dream of some data protection geeks
But aside of that, it's exactly what i'm looking for - possible usecases. Today i've checked speed with small n/k and found that fastecc should be faster than MultiPar starting from 16-32 parity blocks. So sorry, with 20+60 blocks speed will be pretty the same, and i hope that Intel's isa-l is even faster than MultiPar. Moreover, fastecc doesn't work in GF(2^n) fields, it requires GF(p) or GF(p^2) instead, which means extra problems what you don't want to solve for a small speed increase
So, overall, fastecc territory starts where GF(256) territory ends. Also, there is no soft decoder, so it's not interesting for any hardware (ssd, lte and so on)