Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

: den 2 december 2015 16:02 To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance The only recent change to conversation_match_exact was the conversion from address macros to functions, but in all cases the macros were just pointing to the functions anyways so I

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

so it cannot be the culprit. Pascal. > > *From:* wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto: > wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] *On Behalf Of *Pascal Quantin > *Sent:* den 2 december 2015 16:26 > > *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark > *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev]

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance I’ve been testing the performance a little more and it seems that the loading time has increased not only for GTP protocol. I have sniffed a pcap composed by 22844 packets and if you open it up with both versions, v2.0 lasts 0.520s and v2.1

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

eshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org<mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org> [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org<mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org>] On Behalf Of Anders Broman Sent: Wednesday 2 December 2015 16:08 To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance 2015-12-02 16:12 GMT+01:00 POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD) <gloria.pozu...@bics.com<mailto:gloria.pozu...@bics.com>>: Where can I find that option? On Windows, Ctrl + Shift + E, or in the menu Analyz

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

asts 1.433s. But as you saw before for GTP protocol > is even worse, I’ll try to get a pcap example that I can share. > > > > Regards. > > > > *From:* wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [ > mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org > <wireshark-dev-boun...@wiresha

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

to: > wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] *On Behalf Of *Anders Broman > *Sent:* Wednesday 2 December 2015 16:08 > > *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark > *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance > > > > Hi, > > It’s probably deeper down, dissect_stun_h

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

gt; > Pascal. > > >> >> *From:* wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto: >> wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] *On Behalf Of *Pascal Quantin >> *Sent:* den 2 december 2015 16:26 >> >> *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark >> *

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

Where can I find that option? From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Anders Broman Sent: Wednesday 2 December 2015 16:08 To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance Hi, It’s probably

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto:wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org] On Behalf Of Anders Broman Sent: den 2 december 2015 15:41 To: Developer support list for Wireshark; alexis.lagou...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance Hi, Running valgrind on my

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

> On Wednesday, December 2, 2015 14:09 > On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Evan Huus wrote: > > My current hypothesis is commit 74541a9596eead6647c592de9aa46797c2dffa84 > > but I don't have any files to test with locally. > > So that one looks as if it might

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

On Dec 2, 2015, at 8:11 AM, Evan Huus wrote: > My current hypothesis is commit 74541a9596eead6647c592de9aa46797c2dffa84 but > I don't have any files to test with locally. So that one looks as if it might affect *startup* time but not *file loading* time.

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

My tests point to v2.1.0rc0-228-g4f39c60 on master as the big one in terms of capture file load performance hit, but there is an earlier commit that appears to consistently added one second to the load of my test file versus head on master-2.0. I'll start bisect for this smaller one shortly.

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

https://code.wireshark.org/review/12389 A mistake in the macro->method conversion caused the addresses to not actually be added to the hash, leading to hash collision for most addresses and the extreme slowdown. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Evan Huus wrote: > Figured it

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

Figured it out, the macro and the method are not identical. Patch incoming. On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 4:37 PM, Jim Young wrote: > My tests point to v2.1.0rc0-228-g4f39c60 on master as the big one in terms of > capture file load performance hit, but there is an earlier commit that

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

You can directly add the text output of load time... It is possible to share your pcap ? On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:04 AM, POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD) < gloria.pozu...@bics.com> wrote: > I attach the screen captures better. > > > > *From:* wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org [mailto: >

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

Goutte Sent: Wednesday 2 December 2015 09:08 To: Developer support list for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance You can directly add the text output of load time... It is possible to share your pcap ? On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:04 AM, POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD) <gloria.p

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

for Wireshark Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance I can’t share this one, because it has user data and it’s confidential, but we are going to generate another one that can be share. We are using GTP protocol, if that gives you a clue. From: wireshark-dev-boun...@wireshark.org

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

On 1 December 2015 at 16:34, POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD) < gloria.pozu...@bics.com> wrote: > Hello again, > > > > My question is now related to Wireshark performance. I don’t know why, but > If I download the master branch and I compile it, I get the 2.1.0 wireshark > version that, if I install it,