On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Evan Huus <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Anders Broman <[email protected]> wrote: >> Just looking at performance in general as I got reports that top of trunk >> was slower than 1.8. >> Thinking about it fast filtering is more attractive as long as loading isn't >> to slow I suppose. >> It's quite annoying to wait 2 minutes for a file to load and >=2 minutes on >> every filter operation. > > Ya. It was quite surprising to me to find out how much data we're > generating and throwing away on each dissection pass. Now I'm > wondering how much of this could be alleviated somehow by a more > efficient tree representation...
The answer is apparently lots :) I tweaked some things in r52568, r52569 and r52573 that had a fairly substantial improvement when dissecting with a tree. "tshark -V" is as much as 18% faster in my tests, and filtering should improve a little as well, though that is much harder to measure. This may or may not fix the complaints you've been getting, but it's a good improvement to have regardless. Cheers, Evan ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
