tcpdump mailing list archives
Re: pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop()
From: "Gianluca Varenni" <gianluca.varenni () cacetech com>
Date: Mon, 8 Mar 2010 08:54:23 -0800
Just to add to that, we use pcap_next_ex all the time for capturing at gigabit rates (millions of packets per second) without any performance issue.
Have a nice day GV -------------------------------------------------- From: "Guy Harris" <guy () alum mit edu> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 11:57 AM To: <tcpdump-workers () lists tcpdump org> Subject: Re: [tcpdump-workers] pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop()
On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:56 AM, Selçuk Cevher wrote:As far as I know, in general, pcap_loop() function of libpcap library is preferred over pcap_next_ex() function in both live and offline capture. Is it related to some kind of fact that pcap_loop() is more robust/reliable/efficient ?It might be more efficient, but it's also older - at least some applications use it because pcap_next_ex() didn't *exist* when they were written (and pcap_next() is limited in its capabilities; that's why pcap_next_ex() was written).-This is the tcpdump-workers list.Visit https://cod.sandelman.ca/ to unsubscribe.
- This is the tcpdump-workers list. Visit https://cod.sandelman.ca/ to unsubscribe.
Current thread:
- pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop() Selçuk Cevher (Mar 05)
- Re: pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop() Guy Harris (Mar 05)
- Re: pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop() Gianluca Varenni (Mar 08)
- Re: pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop() Guy Harris (Mar 05)