Re: pcap_next_ex() vs pcap_loop()

["Gianluca Varenni" <gianluca.varenni () cacetech com>]

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.