Nmap Development mailing list archives
Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17
From: Daniel Miller <bonsaiviking () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2016 08:41:11 -0500
Tudor, I have some questions regarding these performance improvements.
- Removed some unnecessary calls to target_needs_new_hostgroup() in nmap.cc. This one was really a performance killer and I made so that for hostgroups smaller than PING_GROUP_SZ (currently 4096) it doesn't get called at all.
Are we sure this can be taken out? I see two sides to this: first, the call is important because if a target gets into the wrong hostgroup, it could result in sending packets out the wrong interface or with the wrong source address, etc. The other side of it is that this sorting should have already been done in the host discovery ("ping scanning") phase by the function of the same name in targets.cc. I guess the code might be easier to understand directly, but could you explain a bit more why this improvement is possible?
Performance gains are visible for really high packet rates. For something like: ./nmap 54.239.156.68/16 -sS -Pn -p 80 -T5 -n --open --min-rate 130000 --min-hostgroup 16384 Without these optimizations the scan took about 9.6 seconds, with these optimizations it takes about 8.5 seconds.
Are you also checking smaller scans (CIDR /24 is typical) and normal packet rates to be sure that we're not regressing in more typical cases? Thanks for your hard work! Dan
_______________________________________________ Sent through the dev mailing list https://nmap.org/mailman/listinfo/dev Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/
Current thread:
- Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Tudor-Emil COMAN (Jul 25)
- Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Daniel Miller (Jul 26)
- Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Tudor-Emil COMAN (Jul 31)
- Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Daniel Miller (Jul 31)
- Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Tudor-Emil COMAN (Jul 31)
- Re: Tudor's Status Report - #13 of 17 Daniel Miller (Jul 26)