| 1 |
On Friday 14 Mar 2014 13:15:38 Guido Budack wrote: |
| 2 |
> Hello Mick, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Yes, I know that, I am aware of it... |
| 5 |
> you don't deal here with some script-kid but with somebody who is observing |
| 6 |
> the IT-development of the past 25 years with highest attention... However, |
| 7 |
> the hashes of about 5 other files I downloaded (and as I said some bigger |
| 8 |
> ones too) are correct. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Right, but that could be incidental. Dodgy PSUs can appear to be random in |
| 11 |
their behaviour, or depend on the overall load of the machine. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> What I not understand at all is that the file-size is absolutely correct- |
| 15 |
> that means to the last byte... |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
OK, if the size is correct in kibibits (and not rounded up) then the |
| 18 |
discrepancy points to a miscalculation of the md5 hash. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
What does 'md5sum -c <file_name.md5>' return exactly? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you try 'md5sum <file_name>' more than once, but each time clear the memory |
| 23 |
cache first, do you get the same number? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> Probably I'll not get any explanation by the community (or even worse |
| 26 |
> someone could 'attest me to try to attrack attention...') Just wanted to |
| 27 |
> let you know... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm sure if you share more info some good Samaritan will drop by trying to |
| 30 |
help. :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Mick |
Archives