Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums.
From: CBFalconer (cbfalconer_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 08/26/04
- Next message: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Previous message: Ingo Cyliax: "Re: Looking for 3 serial port processor"
- In reply to: Neil Bradley: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Reply: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 04:15:59 GMT
Neil Bradley wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
> In 20 years of embedded systems development when 16 bit (or bigger)
> CRCs are used, I've witnessed no failures or oddities. During that
> period I've had about a dozen failures with checksums. Simple
> experience dictates it as such.
>
> Plus, I'm not a math whiz, but IIRC, CRC is significantly better
> than checksum because it also has data position order and sequence
> dependencies, and checksum doesn't.
I can't prove it, but I contend that no single bit error can
possibly result in an unchanged CRC checksum. I suspect that this
applies to some possible maximum number of bit errors. There are
other methods optimized to detect burst errors.
-- Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net) Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems. <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
- Next message: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Previous message: Ingo Cyliax: "Re: Looking for 3 serial port processor"
- In reply to: Neil Bradley: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Next in thread: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Reply: Grant Edwards: "Re: Opinions on 16-bit checksums."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|