4 ms·
and if you are not worried about corruption. You might at least want to run a checksum on both ends and compare them.
by Matthias247 6y ago
and if you are not worried about corruption. You might at least want to run a checksum on both ends and compare them.
- myself248 6y agoNah, unix nerds don't care about data corruption. That's the responsibility of some other layer, so by definition we're not in trouble if the whole thing blows up by our own negligence. Checkmate, rsync.
- gpm 6y agoNetcat is tcp is "reliable" and has checksums for each packet, as long as the length is right you can be reasonably assured that the file transferred correctly. Not that extra checksums are a bad idea...
- Matthias247 6y agoTCP indeed has checksums! But they are known not to offer ultimate protection. I had to deal with hosts corrupting TCP streams due to bad hardware before. Which was luckily detected by higher level checksums.
- kortex 6y agoIs there a streamlike tool (a la sed, gzip, etc) that applies forward error correction? I've been looking for such a thing but can't find one that scratches the itch.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]