How do I asynchronously calculate the checksum of a file on the hard disk in Rust?

up vote
-1
down vote

favorite

I have a TCP file server in Rust / Tokio stack.

When a client is uploading a file, the data is being read from a tokio::net::TcpStream and written to a futures_fs::FsWriteSink, which has been started on a separate futures_fs::FsPool.

When the file is completely uploaded, I need to check its consistency by checking its checksum against the one sent by the client.

What is the easiest way to asynchronously calculate the checksum, especially if the file does not fit into RAM?

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

Using a BufReader?
– hellow
Nov 21 at 13:19

2

You might also want to explore calculating the checksum for the actual data uploaded as it's being uploaded. You already have the data passing through your processing at that point, so calculating the checksum then is almost a free operation. This is especially true if you have performance considerations, because by calculating the checksum off the data after it's been saved to disk you're effectively doubling the IO operations you need to do to support file uploading.
– Andrew Henle
Nov 21 at 13:49

Yeah, I totally agree. But it seems that I need to implement such thing myself, doesn't it? I'd like to have something like another Sink, where I could feed the chunks so the Sink could calculate the checksum on the fly.
– hedgar2017
Nov 21 at 14:47

What checksum? Is the implementation of the checksum naturally asynchronous? If so, just use it. If it's not, then this is a duplicate of What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs?.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 17:59

add a comment |

up vote
-1
down vote

favorite

I have a TCP file server in Rust / Tokio stack.

When a client is uploading a file, the data is being read from a tokio::net::TcpStream and written to a futures_fs::FsWriteSink, which has been started on a separate futures_fs::FsPool.

When the file is completely uploaded, I need to check its consistency by checking its checksum against the one sent by the client.

What is the easiest way to asynchronously calculate the checksum, especially if the file does not fit into RAM?

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

Using a BufReader?
– hellow
Nov 21 at 13:19

2

You might also want to explore calculating the checksum for the actual data uploaded as it's being uploaded. You already have the data passing through your processing at that point, so calculating the checksum then is almost a free operation. This is especially true if you have performance considerations, because by calculating the checksum off the data after it's been saved to disk you're effectively doubling the IO operations you need to do to support file uploading.
– Andrew Henle
Nov 21 at 13:49

Yeah, I totally agree. But it seems that I need to implement such thing myself, doesn't it? I'd like to have something like another Sink, where I could feed the chunks so the Sink could calculate the checksum on the fly.
– hedgar2017
Nov 21 at 14:47

What checksum? Is the implementation of the checksum naturally asynchronous? If so, just use it. If it's not, then this is a duplicate of What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs?.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 17:59

add a comment |

up vote
-1
down vote

favorite

I have a TCP file server in Rust / Tokio stack.

When a client is uploading a file, the data is being read from a tokio::net::TcpStream and written to a futures_fs::FsWriteSink, which has been started on a separate futures_fs::FsPool.

When the file is completely uploaded, I need to check its consistency by checking its checksum against the one sent by the client.

What is the easiest way to asynchronously calculate the checksum, especially if the file does not fit into RAM?

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

I have a TCP file server in Rust / Tokio stack.

When a client is uploading a file, the data is being read from a tokio::net::TcpStream and written to a futures_fs::FsWriteSink, which has been started on a separate futures_fs::FsPool.

When the file is completely uploaded, I need to check its consistency by checking its checksum against the one sent by the client.

What is the easiest way to asynchronously calculate the checksum, especially if the file does not fit into RAM?

file asynchronous rust checksum rust-tokio

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

edited Nov 21 at 14:53

Shepmaster

144k11271402

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

asked Nov 21 at 13:17

hedgar2017

3471723

Using a BufReader?
– hellow
Nov 21 at 13:19

2

You might also want to explore calculating the checksum for the actual data uploaded as it's being uploaded. You already have the data passing through your processing at that point, so calculating the checksum then is almost a free operation. This is especially true if you have performance considerations, because by calculating the checksum off the data after it's been saved to disk you're effectively doubling the IO operations you need to do to support file uploading.
– Andrew Henle
Nov 21 at 13:49

Yeah, I totally agree. But it seems that I need to implement such thing myself, doesn't it? I'd like to have something like another Sink, where I could feed the chunks so the Sink could calculate the checksum on the fly.
– hedgar2017
Nov 21 at 14:47

What checksum? Is the implementation of the checksum naturally asynchronous? If so, just use it. If it's not, then this is a duplicate of What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs?.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 17:59

add a comment |

Using a BufReader?
– hellow
Nov 21 at 13:19

2

You might also want to explore calculating the checksum for the actual data uploaded as it's being uploaded. You already have the data passing through your processing at that point, so calculating the checksum then is almost a free operation. This is especially true if you have performance considerations, because by calculating the checksum off the data after it's been saved to disk you're effectively doubling the IO operations you need to do to support file uploading.
– Andrew Henle
Nov 21 at 13:49

Yeah, I totally agree. But it seems that I need to implement such thing myself, doesn't it? I'd like to have something like another Sink, where I could feed the chunks so the Sink could calculate the checksum on the fly.
– hedgar2017
Nov 21 at 14:47

What checksum? Is the implementation of the checksum naturally asynchronous? If so, just use it. If it's not, then this is a duplicate of What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs?.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 17:59

Using a BufReader?
– hellow
Nov 21 at 13:19

You might also want to explore calculating the checksum for the actual data uploaded as it's being uploaded. You already have the data passing through your processing at that point, so calculating the checksum then is almost a free operation. This is especially true if you have performance considerations, because by calculating the checksum off the data after it's been saved to disk you're effectively doubling the IO operations you need to do to support file uploading.
– Andrew Henle
Nov 21 at 13:49

Yeah, I totally agree. But it seems that I need to implement such thing myself, doesn't it? I'd like to have something like another Sink, where I could feed the chunks so the Sink could calculate the checksum on the fly.
– hedgar2017
Nov 21 at 14:47

What checksum? Is the implementation of the checksum naturally asynchronous? If so, just use it. If it's not, then this is a duplicate of What is the best approach to encapsulate blocking I/O in future-rs?.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 17:59

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
0
down vote

It depends on what checksum algorithm you want to use, but using the md5 crate as an example, you can compute the checksum on the fly. Something like this should do it:

// When starting the file transfer

let mut md5_context = md5::Context::new();



// ...



// as part of your existing processing for each block of data

md5_context.consume (&block);



// ...



// once the last block has been processed

return md5_context.compute();

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

1

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

1

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

1

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

accepted

Actually, making simple hashing algorithms asynchronous is in such cases somewhat redundant, as long as one MD5 calculation takes less then 1 us (about 500 ns).

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53412922%2fhow-do-i-asynchronously-calculate-the-checksum-of-a-file-on-the-hard-disk-in-rus%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

up vote
0
down vote

It depends on what checksum algorithm you want to use, but using the md5 crate as an example, you can compute the checksum on the fly. Something like this should do it:

// When starting the file transfer

let mut md5_context = md5::Context::new();



// ...



// as part of your existing processing for each block of data

md5_context.consume (&block);



// ...



// once the last block has been processed

return md5_context.compute();

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

1

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

1

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

1

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

It depends on what checksum algorithm you want to use, but using the md5 crate as an example, you can compute the checksum on the fly. Something like this should do it:

// When starting the file transfer

let mut md5_context = md5::Context::new();



// ...



// as part of your existing processing for each block of data

md5_context.consume (&block);



// ...



// once the last block has been processed

return md5_context.compute();

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

1

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

1

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

1

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

It depends on what checksum algorithm you want to use, but using the md5 crate as an example, you can compute the checksum on the fly. Something like this should do it:

// When starting the file transfer

let mut md5_context = md5::Context::new();



// ...



// as part of your existing processing for each block of data

md5_context.consume (&block);



// ...



// once the last block has been processed

return md5_context.compute();

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

It depends on what checksum algorithm you want to use, but using the md5 crate as an example, you can compute the checksum on the fly. Something like this should do it:

// When starting the file transfer

let mut md5_context = md5::Context::new();



// ...



// as part of your existing processing for each block of data

md5_context.consume (&block);



// ...



// once the last block has been processed

return md5_context.compute();

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

edited Nov 21 at 15:49

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

answered Nov 21 at 15:04

Jmb

2,313521

1

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

1

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

1

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

add a comment |

1

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

1

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

1

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

This appears to be completely synchronous. The OP has explicitly requested an asynchronous solution.
– Shepmaster
Nov 21 at 15:11

@Shepmaster I don't see how you can tell whether this is synchronous or asynchronous: I only said that for each block of data he should call md5_context.consume, I never said that he should do it in a synchronous loop.
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:46

@Shepmaster edited the answer to make it clearer
– Jmb
Nov 21 at 15:50

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

accepted

Actually, making simple hashing algorithms asynchronous is in such cases somewhat redundant, as long as one MD5 calculation takes less then 1 us (about 500 ns).

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

accepted

Actually, making simple hashing algorithms asynchronous is in such cases somewhat redundant, as long as one MD5 calculation takes less then 1 us (about 500 ns).

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

add a comment |

up vote
0
down vote

accepted

Actually, making simple hashing algorithms asynchronous is in such cases somewhat redundant, as long as one MD5 calculation takes less then 1 us (about 500 ns).

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

Actually, making simple hashing algorithms asynchronous is in such cases somewhat redundant, as long as one MD5 calculation takes less then 1 us (about 500 ns).

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

edited Nov 22 at 21:04

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

answered Nov 22 at 20:56

hedgar2017

3471723

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.

Please pay close attention to the following guidance:

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Htykuut