How about an option to verify multiple times after a successful copy with options to set different algorithms to each activated testers?
I dont think it is time efficient, because you are doing the same thing multiple times, plus, some hashing algorithms are slow as hell. I think the best idea is to use a hashing that is efficient and also "collision free" (it means, the hashing is safer to use). One algorithm that fit both purposes is BLAKE2.
I guess you are right about algorithms looki901. But regarding verifying multiple times, I remember this idea came to me long ago when I have this problem where the files copied were successfully verified but verifying it the second time some files will fail, I wonder why that happens.
Some other useful info is i'm currently using TeraCopy 2.3 just because it verifies the same file again if I re-copy and then Slip All, I found out that version 3.x.x didn't verify existing files which is shocking. I think there's a request for this somewhere in the other Code Sector forum
Thanks for the advice
"...second time some files will fail, I wonder why that happens"
That only happens if the source code is full of bugs to the point that you need to do the same thing again because (lets say, the developer) you dont know where the bug is on your source code.
That would simple mean that TeraCopy 2.3 have a source code that was not properly developed. But, in the other case, if you have a software that was properly developed, you actually dont need to verify more than once.
Yet, there is the case about the hashing algorithms, where not all of them are "collision free". This expression means that actually hashing algorithms itself can make mistakes where it let it pass as "non corrupt" something that has changed by 1 bit, that means 2 different things will generate the same hash number.
You will understand better with these:
Now comes the really shocking part, most algorithms that is offered in Teracopy actually have collision issues, and are not safe to use. Using the same hashing algorithm does not make it any better, it is only a waste of time.
"3.x.x didn't verify existing files which is shocking"
That means that this version have another kind of bug, if it dont verify properly.
LOL, well that sucks, I hope they will look into all this for future releases.
Do you have any recommendation for similar program?
Customer support service by UserEcho