SHA1SUM Inconsistent results

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run 
against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent.  File is on 
an ext3 LV and OS is rawhide up-to-date.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:

>  Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run
>
>  against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
>  downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent.  File is on 
>  an ext3 LV and OS is rawhide up-to-date. 
Just got mine via BT and the SHA1SUM checks out every time.  So... um... I 
dunno.

--g

[Eric Sandeen]

Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>  Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run
>
>  against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
>  downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent.  File is on 
>  an ext3 LV and OS is rawhide up-to-date.
>   
You sure the torrent is done downloading? :)  Had to ask...

-Eric

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Eric Sandeen wrote:
>  Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> > Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run 
> > against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
> > downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent.  File is on 
> > an ext3 LV and OS is rawhide up-to-date.
> >
>  
>  You sure the torrent is done downloading? :)  Had to ask...
>  
>  -Eric
>   
Well, it said it was and I had even thought about that and double 
checked.  But even then, with no torrent running, why the inconsistent 
results?  Same today after a reboot.

I did a wget of the file from a different mirror and sha1sum is correct 
on this one.  Not blaming the mirror, just noting facts. I noticed 
sha1sum ran longer on the torrent version, so maybe something about the 
file structure, however I ran a fsck and it was ok.

I guess this one will just have to be one of those unexplainable things. 
  Tho I do dislike those.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart

[Michal Jaegermann]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:07:52AM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>  Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run
>
>  against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
>  downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent. 
Are you sure that you were not still downloading?  Bittorent makes
right away a _sparse_ file of a final length but its size is a
different story.  In other words numbers you will see from
'ls -ls' or 'ls -lsh' will get consistent only when you finished
that download. With other download methods, say wget, a length will
grow over time.

   Michal

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:07:52AM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
> > Any reason why sha1sum returns a different result each time it is run 
> > against my downloaded release DVD iso of i386 FC10?  None match the 
> > downloaded SHA1SUM list.  Downloaded the DVD via bittorrent.
>  
>  Are you sure that you were not still downloading?  Bittorent makes
>  right away a _sparse_ file of a final length but its size is a
>  different story.  In other words numbers you will see from
>  'ls -ls' or 'ls -lsh' will get consistent only when you finished
>  that download. With other download methods, say wget, a length will
>  grow over time.
>  
>     Michal
>   
To the best of my knowledge, it was done.  Ktorrent said it was done, 
status said it was seeding and upload size was way above the mirror 
listed size.  I also "quit" the notification icon.  There was no 
activity on the cable modem either.  Comparing the file size with a wget 
version of the file from a different mirror shows identical number of 
bytes.  I can't now do a diff since I deleted the bittorrent version.

Thanks for the reply...just have to put this in my memory banks and see 
what happens nex time.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart

[Jerry Amundson]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel
<clydekunkel7734(a)cox.net&gt; wrote:
>  To the best of my knowledge, it was done.  Ktorrent said it was done,
> status
>  said it was seeding and upload size was way above the mirror listed size.  I
>  also "quit" the notification icon.  There was no activity on the cable modem
>  either.  Comparing the file size with a wget version of the file from a
>  different mirror shows identical number of bytes.  I can't now do a diff
>  since I deleted the bittorrent version.
>
>  Thanks for the reply...just have to put this in my memory banks and see what
>  happens nex time. 
Have you tried Check Data, from the right click menu?

jerry

-- 
There's plenty of youth in America - it's time we find the "fountain of
smart".

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Jerry Amundson wrote:
>  On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Clyde E. Kunkel
>  <clydekunkel7734(a)cox.net&gt; wrote:
> > To the best of my knowledge, it was done.  Ktorrent said it was done, status
> > said it was seeding and upload size was way above the mirror listed size.  I
> > also "quit" the notification icon.  There was no activity on the cable
> modem
> > either.  Comparing the file size with a wget version of the file from a
> > different mirror shows identical number of bytes.  I can't now do a diff
> > since I deleted the bittorrent version.
> >
> > Thanks for the reply...just have to put this in my memory banks and see what
> > happens nex time.
>  
>  Have you tried Check Data, from the right click menu?
>  
>  jerry
>   
Can't, file deleted.  Thanks for the suggestion.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart

[A. Mani]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Clyde E. Kunkel
<clydekunkel7734(a)cox.net&gt; wrote:
>  Jerry Amundson wrote: 
> > Have you tried Check Data, from the right click menu?
> >
>  Can't, file deleted.  Thanks for the suggestion. 
I think it is probably this. Some versions of ktorrent misreport
'download completed'.
You should have 'checked data' and ...then it would have continued !

Best

A. Mani




-- 
A. Mani
Member, Cal. Math. Soc

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Mani A wrote:
>  <snip>
>  You should have 'checked data' and ...then it would have continued !
>  
>  Best
>  
>  A. Mani
>  
>  
>  
>   
  Yep, I agree.  I redid the torrent and 'checked data' when I thought 
it was done.  Said ok.  Sha1sum on this version was consistent and 
matched SHA1SUM file.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart

[Michal Jaegermann]

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 12:33:08PM -0500, Clyde E. Kunkel wrote:
>  
>  To the best of my knowledge, it was done.  Ktorrent said it was done, 
>  status said it was seeding and upload size was way above the mirror 
>  listed size.  I also "quit" the notification icon.  There was no 
>  activity on the cable modem either. 
That sounds like indeed done but maybe something was lying?

>  Comparing the file size with a wget 
>  version of the file from a different mirror shows identical number of 
>  bytes. 
Here is the crucial point.  You were not comparing sizes (in blocks)
but lengths (in bytes).  A file from bittorent will have a correct
length right away even when it is really nearly empty.

   Michal

[Clyde E. Kunkel]

Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>  <snip>
>  
>  Here is the crucial point.  You were not comparing sizes (in blocks)
>  but lengths (in bytes).  A file from bittorent will have a correct
>  length right away even when it is really nearly empty.
>  
>     Michal
>   
Didn't know that.  Ok, then looking back, I probably only **thought** 
that the download was complete.  I'll really make sure next time.  In 
fact, I think I will try it now.

Thanks!!  Good info.

-- 
---------------------------------
Regards,

Old Fart