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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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@wireshark.org > > http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users > > > _______________________________________________ Wireshark-users mailing list Wireshark-users@wireshark.org http://www.wireshark.org/mailman/listinfo/wireshark-users
