Re: [Ethereal-dev] Back to performance...

[Lars Roland <lars.roland@xxxxxxx>]

Ian Schorr wrote:

> So how do we move forward with this?  So far no one seems to disagree.
>
> Should we allow tap authors more time to respond?  Does someone need to 
> do a more thorough review code to determine if no taps do, in fact, 
> depend on the current display filter?  Should we make a design decision 
> that tap listeners should not depend on the current display filter, or a 
> seperate function should be created (or perhaps my "retap" flag should 
> be replaced with something that is a bit more intelligent, and allows 
> only specific taps to be rebuilt if needed)?
I think all taps or at least most of them don't depend on the display 
filter. I am just not so sure about the conversation, hostlist and rtp taps.
However I don't think you will get only a small performance improvement 
as only the xxx_packet functions of the taps are called a lot. These 
routines are usually quite small and fast compared to dissector funtions 
which are called anyway when you change the display filter. But go ahead 
  , I'd like to see the results.

BTW, I have a capture file with more than 3 million H.225 RAS packets. I 
used this file to test the H.225 RAS SRT tap of tethereal. It took about 
2 hours to analyze this file with Ethereal 0.9.16 and a first version of 
my tap. With 0.10.3 it takes only 8 minutes on the same PC!

Regards,
Lars
> On Jul 27, 2004, at 2:35 AM, Guy Harris wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 26, 2004 at 04:18:31PM -0400, Ian Schorr wrote:
> >
> > > Still a bit concerned that the taps are being rebuilt when changing
> > > display filter and other events that really should only change the
> > > packet list, though.  What if we did something simple like this (see
> > > attached patch against latest SVN)?
> >
> >
> > That sounds reasonable *if*, in fact, refiltering the display *doesn't*
> > change any taps.
> >
> > It looks as if "tap_push_tapped_queue()" would get called regardless of
> > whether the packet passes the filter or not, and the taps have their own
> > filters, so, unless it's considered a bug, rather than a feature, that
> > the display filter has no effect on the taps, that sounds like the right
> > thing to do.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ethereal-dev mailing list
> Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev