WTB Updater.

[xxdem]

10 hours ago, Rootware said:

 

Around 1800 files for Interlude and 2000 files for HF clients. Make a video where you in 2-3 seconds calculated hashes for 1800 files with 5GB volume or for 2000 files with 11GB volume.

 

If you processing only system folder and some other files, then need be an idiot to spend time and/or money for creating/purchase the Updater. Share on website your crappy 60 MB patch for your server - that's the way will better.

 

I spoke about full client control via Updater with checking and updating all missed/corrupted/modified files.

 

I will upload the whole h5 client on the launcher tonight and will upload a video so you can shut your mouth

[Rootware]

5 hours ago, xxdem said:

 

I will upload the whole h5 client on the launcher tonight and will upload a video so you can shut your mouth

 

Good. And do not forget to show the source code of the method in which the checksum of the file is calculated. This would eliminate the questions to you about the attempts of fraud with banal iterating through files in the directory.

 

Tip: to calculate the checksum of a file, it is necessary to read it by-byte.

[xxdem]

2 minutes ago, Rootware said:

 

Good. And do not forget to show the source code of the method in which the checksum of the file is calculated. This would eliminate the questions to you about the attempts of fraud with banal iterating through files in the directory.

 

Tip: to calculate the checksum of a file, it is necessary to read it by-byte.

 

Launcher uses https://github.com/leo-yuriev/t1ha for hashing and lz4 for compression, I don't use my own hashing method lol... 

 

You can never be faster than this combo for an updater, never and I am not gonna debate about this.

 

The launcher is written in C and is natively compatible with these libs, providing insane hash/decomoress speeds

[Rootware]

26 minutes ago, xxdem said:

 

Launcher uses https://github.com/leo-yuriev/t1ha for hashing and lz4 for compression, I don't use my own hashing method lol... 

 

You can never be faster than this combo for an updater, never and I am not gonna debate about this.

 

The launcher is written in C and is natively compatible with these libs, providing insane hash/decomoress speeds

 

You can't it done in 2-3 seconds. Even if you use this method for calculate hash tables. SATA3 interface max speed 650-700 MBytes per second. Exception only for PCI-E interfaces.

 

If you bragging the results with PCI-E interface usage then it's not practice and useless in 99.999999% cases for regular users. It's only glamour advertisment.

 

And not matter what the language you uses - C, C++, C# if you uses not console application. You still lose performance on servicing the program window interface.

 

I'm uses MD5 hash and it less exploited than your method.

Edited March 6, 2019 by Rootware

[Anarchy]

lol man md5 is not something you should be bragging about

[DenArt Designs]

it does not matter if in your computer is fast, is matter if in players will work in the end.

[xxdem]

Of course you use md5, you are stupid and you are bragging about it, who cares for security and collisions when it comes to updaters? Md5 is slow as fuck, a good hardware exploiting implementation like t1ha0 can reach hashing speeds in the range of memcpy.

 

Winforms will reduce performance and console application will increase it, lol. The developer of the year

[Rootware]

18 minutes ago, Anarchy said:

lol man md5 is not something you should be bragging about

 

If you know the better method for calculate hash for file with less chance of collision than MD5 i will glad to use it. otherwise you confirm what your application have a bit more chances for got collisions and will skips in perspective for update some client files.

[xxdem]

Just now, Rootware said:

 

If you know the better method for calculate hash for file with less chance of collision than MD5 i will glad to use it. otherwise you confirm what your application have a bit more chances for got collisions and will skips in perspective for update some client files.

 

The chance for the same file hash to collide with another version of itself is zero, go do your maths

[Rootware]

Just now, xxdem said:

 

The chance for the same file hash to collide with another version of itself is zero, go do your maths

 

it's true if you use 10 files.

[xxdem]

Even sumhash which is super fast could be also viable for a file updater maybe with some mods, and you are using a slow and secure hashing function that was designed for different purposes

[xxdem]

Just now, Rootware said:

 

it's true if you use 10 files.

 

Lmao you don't compare the hashes between the files, filename is also a key so hashing values are individual, you can only collide with the same file not with others, you don't care if you collide with other files because you check the file name and path first

[Rootware]

Just now, xxdem said:

Even sumhash which is super fast could be also viable for a file updater maybe with some mods, and you are using a slow and secure hashing function that was designed for different purposes

 

Before starting for create Launcher for owm project i reseached about what the hash method to use. I stopped on MD5 because it have more safety.

[Rootware]

1 minute ago, xxdem said:

 

Lmao you don't compare the hashes between the files, filename is also a key so hashing values are individual, you can only collide with the same file not with others, you don't care if you collide with other files because you check the file name and path first

 

I spoke about probability. The more files, the greater the likelihood of a collision. Still LMAO?

[xxdem]

Just now, Rootware said:

 

Before starting for create Launcher for owm project i reseached about what the hash method to use. I stopped on MD5 because it have more safety.

 

You don't care for safety, you care only for speed. You are not creating a hashmap here, hashes are individual for each file on the updater.