Jeff Morriss wrote: > Gerald Combs wrote: >> Jaap Keuter wrote: >>> On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:05:09 -0400, Jeff Morriss >>>> This appeared in rev 7912 and it appears that the max # of files >>>> limit was there originally because *ethereal kept the old files open >>>> so we would (prior to that commit) run out of fds. >>>> >>>> Any reason not to just take this constant out and let users specify >>>> any number? >>> Any number would mean an array of keeping names of that size as well. >>> And >>> it's some sort of self protection, since not all file systems handle a >>> kazillion files well. But what an appropriate limit would be, who knows? > > We don't actually store all those files names, just an incrementing > variable.
Oops, I was wrong about that: we do store the file names. <sigh> >> 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... ___________________________________________________________________________ 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
