Wireshark-users: Re: [Wireshark-users] Wireshark Performance on Laptops
From: Sake Blok <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:22:37 +0200
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:00:21PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 1:47 PM, Sake Blok wrote:
> > I'm curious about:
> > - When capturing, how well do Linux and MacOS/X perform on a full  
> > Gbit link?
>  Out of the box, Windows and winpcap [winpcap], the port of libpcap  
>  to Win32, perform much better than other popular Unix-like OS.

Hmmm... and I was trying to move *away* from Windows :(

(however, a recent post *did* reveal that display filtering was way 
quicker on MacOS/X and Linux as it was on Windows)

> Mac OS X might behave *somewhat* similarly to FreeBSD, because they  
> both use BPF, but Luca seems to indicate that stuff below the capture  
> mechanism makes a big difference - one issue is that if you get one  
> interrupt per packet, your performance will suck at high packet rates,  
> so polling, which causes multiple packets to be picked up per (clock)  
> interrupt, can improve matters.  I don't know offhand whether OS X's  
> drivers and networking stack do polling or any other form of interrupt  
> batching.

I can imagine the drivers being optimized for normal usage of the
network, not capturing.

> (I don't capture enough traffic to speak from experience - I mostly  
> either read capture files supplied to me or do small captures of  
> traffic to and from my own machine.)

Assuming you are working on a MacBook (Pro?), did you get a chance to
work with a SSD as well as a HDD? If so, did you experience different