Re: [Wireshark-users] tshark or dumpcap ring buffer limitations

[Jeff Morriss <jeff.morriss.ws () gmail com>]

Jeff Morriss wrote:
> Gerald Combs wrote:
> > Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > > On Thu, 20 May 2010 12:05:09 -0400, Jeff Morriss
> > > > This appeared in rev 7912 and it appears that the max # of files 
> > > > limit was there originally because *ethereal kept the old files open 
> > > > so we would (prior to that commit) run out of fds.
> > > >
> > > > Any reason not to just take this constant out and let users specify 
> > > > any number?
> > > Any number would mean an array of keeping names of that size as well. 
> > > And
> > > it's some sort of self protection, since not all file systems handle a
> > > kazillion files well. But what an appropriate limit would be, who knows?
>
> We don't actually store all those files names, just an incrementing 
> variable.

Oops, I was wrong about that: we do store the file names.  <sigh>

> > I think a value of 50000 or 65535 would make sense for
> > RINGBUFFER_MAX_NUM_FILES. We could also just print a warning like "Wow!
> > That's a lot of files!" instead of forcibly capping the value.
>
> I would think that if we continue to support files:0 (unlimited files) 
> then it makes more sense to just put out a warning.  That would be 
> better than forcing them to choose between unlimited (and possibly 
> running out of disk space) and N files (which, as in this users case, 
> wasn't enough).

Well, maybe not since we have to store all those file names...
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe