Re: printtableSize() causing huge spike in memory usage at end of hostgroup

[Brandon Enright <bmenrigh () ucsd edu>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:03:03 -0600
David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 11:20:00PM +0000, Brandon Enright wrote:
> > Comments/results inline.
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:14:25 -0600
> > David Fifield <david () bamsoftware com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 11:38:13PM +0000, Brandon Enright wrote:
> > > > Attached is a patch to use memory a little bit more efficiently.
> > > > The buffer starts at 1k and any time it is too small it is
> > > > doubled in size.  I did some testing that suggests for most
> > > > scans 1k is probably enough.
...snip...
> > > What about a simple scan without -sV? 1024 seems a little high to
> > > me.
> >
> > It probably is.  The results at the bottom of this email show that.
> >
> > To test the size of the table and how much memory gets allocated
> > with my patch, I ran 4 scans, each against the same /23.
...snip...
> > I think what this is telling us is that we should start the table
> > off at ~512 bytes rather than 1024.  In the average usage scenario
> > this will be almost no waste and shouldn't need to resize the table
> > more than once.  Note that the really huge table in the last scan
> > was from our DNS servers.  Every single name in the whole zone got
> > printed with the dns-zone-transfer script.
>
> The patch looks good. Go ahead and commit it with the 512-byte initial
> allocation.
>
> David Fifield

Thanks, committed in r12670.

Brandon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAknJUCwACgkQqaGPzAsl94LJCACgr0teUOn/gBZ0mpj5udLyFTB7
SVUAnjWq+3USGGjHkah1rLLd/cE7cTqm
=8j4d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://SecLists.Org