On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> Let's wait until the generation of the expert info results in a measurably
> significant CPU or memory use increase before we add a knob to turn it
> off. There are probably other places to look at to reduce memory usage
> first.
>
That's a
ireshark
> Cc: Sultan, Hassan
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Setting to disable all expert info
>
>
>
> 2017-08-02 22:00 GMT+02:00 Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev d...@wireshark.org <mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org> >:
>
>
> Here's my scenario :
On Aug 2, 2017, at 1:05 PM, Pascal Quantin wrote:
> Indeed they probably do not represent much compared to all the fields
> registered by dissectors. Moreover you are the first one I remember asking
> for such a feature. Like Jaap, I do not think this is a good move as of today.
+1
Let's wait
today.
> Thanks,
>
> Hassan
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Wireshark-dev [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On
> Behalf
> > Of Jaap Keuter
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2017 11:59 AM
> > To: Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev
> > Su
> Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Setting to disable all expert info
>
> Are we going to be picking off features one by one to get the memory footprint
> down? Then I see a long list of preference settings growing from this. Not
> something I look forward to.
>
>
> On
Hi Hassan,
2017-08-02 20:43 GMT+02:00 Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev <
wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Am I right in my understanding that there is no global way of disabling
> insertion of expert information ?
>
You are right.
>
>
> Assuming I’m correct, would anyone object to m
Are we going to be picking off features one by one to get the memory footprint
down? Then I see a long list of preference settings growing from this. Not
something I look forward to.
On 02-08-17 20:43, Sultan, Hassan via Wireshark-dev wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Am I right in my understanding that t
Hi,
Am I right in my understanding that there is no global way of disabling
insertion of expert information ?
Assuming I'm correct, would anyone object to me adding that setting ? That
would be another way of lowering memory footprint.
Thx,
Hassan
_
