ANNOUNCEMENT: Live Wireshark University & Allegro Packets online APAC Wireshark Training Session
July 17th, 2024 | 10:00am-11:55am SGT (UTC+8) | Online

Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Back to performance...

Note: This archive is from the project's previous web site, ethereal.com. This list is no longer active.

From: Lars Roland <lars.roland@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 2004 12:24:47 +0200
Ian Schorr wrote:

So how do we move forward with this?  So far no one seems to disagree.

Should we allow tap authors more time to respond? Does someone need to do a more thorough review code to determine if no taps do, in fact, depend on the current display filter? Should we make a design decision that tap listeners should not depend on the current display filter, or a seperate function should be created (or perhaps my "retap" flag should be replaced with something that is a bit more intelligent, and allows only specific taps to be rebuilt if needed)?

I think all taps or at least most of them don't depend on the display filter. I am just not so sure about the conversation, hostlist and rtp taps. However I don't think you will get only a small performance improvement as only the xxx_packet functions of the taps are called a lot. These routines are usually quite small and fast compared to dissector funtions which are called anyway when you change the display filter. But go ahead , I'd like to see the results.

BTW, I have a capture file with more than 3 million H.225 RAS packets. I used this file to test the H.225 RAS SRT tap of tethereal. It took about 2 hours to analyze this file with Ethereal 0.9.16 and a first version of my tap. With 0.10.3 it takes only 8 minutes on the same PC!

Regards,
Lars

On Jul 27, 2004, at 2:35 AM, Guy Harris wrote:

On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Ian Schorr wrote:

Still a bit concerned that the taps are being rebuilt when changing
display filter and other events that really should only change the
packet list, though.  What if we did something simple like this (see
attached patch against latest SVN)?


That sounds reasonable *if*, in fact, refiltering the display *doesn't*
change any taps.

It looks as if "tap_push_tapped_queue()" would get called regardless of
whether the packet passes the filter or not, and the taps have their own
filters, so, unless it's considered a bug, rather than a feature, that
the display filter has no effect on the taps, that sounds like the right
thing to do.


_______________________________________________
Ethereal-dev mailing list
Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev