Jeff Morriss wrote:
>>> I think a value of 50000 or 65535 would make sense for
>>> RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES. We could also just print a warning like "Wow!
>>> That's a lot of files!" instead of forcibly capping the value.
>> I would think that if we continue to support files:0 (unlimited files)
>> then it makes more sense to just put out a warning. That would be
>> better than forcing them to choose between unlimited (and possibly
>> running out of disk space) and N files (which, as in this users case,
>> wasn't enough).
>
> Well, maybe not since we have to store all those file names...
I increased RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES to 100000 in r32998, along with
printing warnings when the number is large or if we change it.
--
Join us for Sharkfest ’10! · Wireshark® Developer and User Conference
Stanford University, June 14-17 · http://www.cacetech.com/sharkfest.10/
