Re: Memory consumption in tshark

[Dario Lombardo <dario.lombardo.ml () gmail com>]

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com> wrote:

> We already discard a great deal of state in (single-pass) tshark that we
> keep around in Wireshark (or two-pass tshark). We do need to keep some,
> though. It's only a bug if we're keeping more than we actually need, and
> that's not determinable from the information we have here. Dario, if you
> could get us a memory profile of tshark in this situation (through
> valgrind's massif tool, for example) that would help us debug further.

For sure. But I'd need exactly the commands to run and what I should give
you back.


> I dislike the idea of two-pass by default for exactly this reason: people
> expect tshark to be relatively state-less. This is already not the case,
> but it's a lot worse in two-pass mode. It might even make sense to add a
> --state-less flag to tshark that disables all options which require state.
> I don't know how feasible that would be however.
>
> Evan

FYI, 10G file is a giant DNS capture. Maybe the state kept in the queries
(for conversations creation) triggers the memory consumption.

___________________________________________________________________________
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