Where can I find that option?

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] 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_heur has gone from 3.51 to 14.06.
@ Gloria can you try to turn the stun heuristic off to see if it makes a 
difference?
Regards
Anders

From: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Evan Huus
Sent: 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 can't imagine that would have a huge effect on 
performance?

On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 9:45 AM, Anders Broman 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:


From: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
 On Behalf Of Anders Broman
Sent: den 2 december 2015 15:41
To: Developer support list for Wireshark; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

Hi,
Running valgrind on my standard pcap we have gone from
==36946== Callgrind, a call-graph generating cache profiler
==36946== Copyright (C) 2002-2013, and GNU GPL'd, by Josef Weidendorfer et al.
==36946== Using Valgrind-3.10.0.SVN and LibVEX; rerun with -h for copyright info
==36946== Command: /home/ericsson/wireshark/.libs/lt-tshark -Y frame -nr 
/home/ericsson/etxrab/TCT_SIP_traffic.pcapng
==36946==
==36946== For interactive control, run 'callgrind_control -h'.
==36946==
==36946== Events    : Ir
==36946== Collected : 18211043816
==36946==
==36946== I   refs:      18,211,043,816

to

==4865==
==4865== Events    : Ir
==4865== Collected : 1595333469530
==4865==
==4865== I   refs:      1,595,333,469,530

The big difference seems to be

Latest                                                              June
87.95  37.92 6 076 548  g_hastable_lookup  5.56 2.98 6 515 523

Looking deeper
49.43 25 142 686 213 conversation_match_exact 0.32 576 548

decode_udp_ports seems much more expensive

Regards
Anders


From: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of POZUELO Gloria 
(BCS/PSD)
Sent: den 2 december 2015 14:01
To: Developer support list for Wireshark; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
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 lasts 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: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of POZUELO Gloria 
(BCS/PSD)
Sent: Wednesday 2 December 2015 09:13
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; Developer 
support list 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: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexis La 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) 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I attach the screen captures better.

From: 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> 
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
 On Behalf Of POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD)
Sent: Wednesday 2 December 2015 08:53
To: Developer support list for Wireshark
Subject: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance

Hello,
Here is the loading time difference between the v2.0 and the last automated 
build for win64 
Wireshark-win64-2.1.0-875-g9779ae3.exe<https://www.wireshark.org/download/automated/win64/Wireshark-win64-2.1.0-875-g9779ae3.exe>
[Imágenes integradas 2][Imágenes integradas 1]
Regards.

________________________________

**** DISCLAIMER****
http://www.bics.com/maildisclaimer/

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             
mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe


___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             
mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to