RE: [jamboost] Timestamps

From: Markus Scherschanski (mscherschanski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-05 10:16:25

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Knight [mailto:knight_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 2:44 PM
> To: 'jamboost_at_[hidden]'
> Subject: RE: [jamboost] Timestamps
> 
> 
> > The solution would be, that a timestamp is only different 
> when it differs
> > more than 2 seconds.
> 
> I don't think that fixes the whole problem.

That was my first tip - don't know...

> That would fix it if the onlly problem were seeing false differences:
> two timestamps that you detect are only one second apart, and you have
> to treat them as if they were really the same.

Okay, that's right.

> The real thorny part of the FAT filesystem is false *matches*: the
> source file is updated one second after the target file, but the
> two timestamps are the same because the update occured in the same
> two-second period for the FAT file system.

So, maybe we should just always add two seconds to the target??!?!

> I don't see any way to detect false matches without going to 
> some scheme
> that avoids timestamps completely in favor of using the real file
> contents.

Yeah, that would be good, MD5 or CRC32?! ;)

But that would be rather slow and not secure in some unfortune cases.

Regards,
Markus