Re: [Wireshark-commits] rev 45313: /trunk/ /trunk/doc/: reordercap.pod /trunk/: reordercap.c

[Martin Mathieson <martin.r.mathieson () googlemail com>]

On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Jakub Zawadzki <darkjames-ws () darkjames pl>wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 01:36:58PM -0400, Martin Mathieson wrote:
> > I think Joerg might have meant that adding a man page makes it look more
> > final that it will not be integrated?
>
> If it's true, than r45282 should be referenced :P
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> 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

Another reading might be that having the option not to write the output
file at all would not be compatible with editcap.  Obviously, if any other
transformations were also applied to make the output different from the
input this would not be done.

One reason for being reluctant to integrate was performance (i.e. that
reordering would be slow, and we wouldn't want the overhead, but also that
changing editcap to support this option might slow it down, depending upon
how it was merged in).

As it turns out, sorting the frames of a large file not too far out of
order (and several methods have now been used now!) isn't too bad - the
run-time is dominated by the time taken to read and dump the frames.

I will give it a go after Jakub completes the change he is going to do.
 But I'm still not really convinced of the benefits.
Martin

___________________________________________________________________________
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