On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 02:51:01PM -0700, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> On Aug 20, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Sake Blok wrote:
>
> > (however, a recent post *did* reveal that display filtering was way
> > quicker on MacOS/X and Linux as it was on Windows)
>
> Which posting was that?
http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users/200906/msg00211.html
> > I can imagine the drivers being optimized for normal usage of the
> > network, not capturing.
>
> For desktop usage, that *might* mean no polling, as polling increases
> latency and boosts throughput, although if you're downloading
> something big, or streaming something, that might be the right tradeoff.
>
> For server usage, that might mean polling.
And for capturing, you want accurate timestamps (so 1 IRQ per packet)
and being able to handle a high amount of packets per second (polling).
I guess in the end, analysis of the data is more important than
capturing the data, as that can be done with other devices in most of
the time too.
> > 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
> > performance?
>
> At home, an MBP; it has a (rather crowded) HDD:
>
> $ df /
> Filesystem 512-blocks Used Available Capacity Mounted on
> /dev/disk0s2 311909984 302013824 9384160 97% /
Mmmm... I seem to keep filling up my laptop with data over and over
again too :-)
Cheers,
Sake
