On 3/23/09, didier <dgauthe...@magic.fr> wrote: > There's still some small stuff which could go but It would only improve > wireshark speed by 20-40%, I'm not sure it's worth the time.
Even that would be worth it, I think ... > A big change is the per packet protocols bitfield but even if it's in > rather good shape it triggers a lot of existing bugs in dissectors, > breaks plugins (I changed hfinfo structure) and so on. > > The last change is the packet list but it's a ugly hack and needs a lot > of work. > > On the other hand I don't know if Wireshark speed is a problem for most > users, for a trace with a couple of ten thousand packets its current > speed is ok. > > Maybe it's a prejudice, at first I thought that running Wireshark on > captures with millions packets was stupid, about using the right tool > and so on, but it's surprisingly useful. I routinely deal with captures with millions of packets, and would love it if Wireshark was quicker. When I looked at these issues back in 2003 or thereabouts there was lots of low hanging fruit. However, these days I lack the time to look into these issues. -- Regards, Richard Sharpe ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
