the OSX tests was on "similarly" specced hardware. I could obviously
not test how OSX Wireshark behaved/performed on the same physical
machine I tested with Windows.
On Sat, Feb 9, 2008 at 11:25 AM, ronnie sahlberg
<ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Personal first hand experience.
>
>
> I have tested this myself on several PCs and compared. The same host,
> the same capture file, the same preferences using the same SVN version
> of wireshark
> it ran 2+ times faster when booting into linux than w2k and w2k3.
> Bear in mind, the tests were all for semi large capture files in the
> range 10-200MByte and testing how long it takes to load a trace, how
> long it takes to filter a trace, how long it takes to bring up the tcp
> sequence number graph.
> I think it was something like 5-6 different single and multi cpu systems.
> (multiprocessing is a bit pointless with wireshark)
>
> The purpose was to find which hw+sw config would perform the fastest a
> large group of users that would spend significant amount of time
> looking at and filtering and analyzing 100MB - 1GByte large capture
> files. I dont care what systems the end users would end up using,
> they just wanted to know :
> "which hw+sw combination should we use to make analyzing/filtering of
> large captures as fast as possible".
>
>
> For small captures the difference was smaller than for large
> captures. the larger the capture the more dramatic the difference
> was.
> That is probably an effect of linux having wastly better memory
> management than windows.
>
>
> For what its worth, comparing to "similar" specced hw platforms that
> ran OSX, OSX performed slightly worse than a similar linux setup on
> small captures but sligtly better than linux for very large
> captures.
>
>
> ronnie s
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 9, 2008 at 8:16 AM, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > ronnie sahlberg schrieb:
> >
> > > Use a linux box to run wireshark on instead.
> > > It is cheaper than terminal servers and as a bonus on the same
> > > hardware, processing the same capture files, wireshark will run
> > > several times faster on linux than w2k3
> > >
> > Do you have any hard facts, or is this the usual Linux-FUD?
> >
> > Regards, ULFL
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wireshark-users mailing list
> > Wireshark-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
> >
>
