Wireshark mailing list archives
Re: Monitoring
From: "mike () grounded net" <mike () grounded net>
Date: Thu, 20 May 2010 10:23:39 -0500
My suggestion/comment was based upon the notion that the bulk of the resources responsible for ultimately grinding a system to a halt are consumed not by the act of capturing, but by the act of analyzing a given packet/set of packets to provide the "what's going on" information (an action which i'm informally equating with the term "decoding"). If this is
Don't know, I only know that on a 4GB memory server, it eventually tells me it is out of memory and wireshark dies. That's if I just leave it running while going off on something else.
in fact accurate, this would be the wrong tool to implement in an attempt to provide insight without consuming resources.
I understand, just wondered if there was an option to monitor without capturing. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sent via: Wireshark-users mailing list <wireshark-users () wireshark org> Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-users Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-users mailto:wireshark-users-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe
Current thread:
- Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 15)
- Re: Monitoring M Holt (May 15)
- Re: Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 16)
- Re: Monitoring M Holt (May 16)
- Re: Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 16)
- Re: Monitoring Kevin Cullimore (May 16)
- Re: Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 19)
- Re: Monitoring Kevin Cullimore (May 19)
- Re: Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 20)
- Re: Monitoring Jaap Keuter (May 20)
- Re: Monitoring Kevin Cullimore (May 21)
- Re: Monitoring Jaap Keuter (May 21)
- Re: Monitoring mike () grounded net (May 16)
- Re: Monitoring M Holt (May 15)