My current hypothesis is commit 74541a9596eead6647c592de9aa46797c2dffa84 but I don't have any files to test with locally.
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:36 AM, Pascal Quantin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2015-12-02 16:31 GMT+01:00 Anders Broman <[email protected]>: > >> Hi, >> >> I’m betting on this change J >> >> >> https://code.wireshark.org/review/gitweb?p=wireshark.git;a=commitdiff;h=9e54fcee5224aef800155514cac5e40d9e38a23e >> > > This change is also in master-2.0, so it cannot be the culprit. > > Pascal. > > >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Pascal Quantin >> *Sent:* den 2 december 2015 16:26 >> >> *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark >> *Subject:* Re: [Wireshark-dev] Wireshark Performance >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> 2015-12-02 16:12 GMT+01:00 POZUELO Gloria (BCS/PSD) < >> [email protected]>: >> >> Where can I find that option? >> >> >> >> On Windows, Ctrl + Shift + E, or in the menu Analyze -> Enabled >> protocols. Unselect stun_udp. >> >> >> >> *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] >> <[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]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [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] >> *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] >> <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *POZUELO Gloria >> (BCS/PSD) >> *Sent:* den 2 december 2015 14:01 >> *To:* Developer support list for Wireshark; [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] >> <[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *POZUELO Gloria >> (BCS/PSD) >> *Sent:* Wednesday 2 December 2015 09:13 >> *To:* [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] >> <[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]> wrote: >> >> I attach the screen captures better. >> >> >> >> *From:* [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> >> >> [image: Imágenes integradas 2][image: Imágenes integradas 1] >> >> Regards. >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> >> **** DISCLAIMER**** >> http://www.bics.com/maildisclaimer/ >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> >> ___________________________________________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ > 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 >
___________________________________________________________________________ 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
