Re: Linux and Network Flight Recorder

Andi Kleen (ak@muc.de)
24 Jun 1999 16:12:35 +0200

kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru writes:
>
> To add, even their blames about Linux-2.0 is in large extent a blatant lie.
> In the mode, which they use libpcap, linux-2.0 shows not worse performance
> than BPF and adding BPF code to 2.0 is not harder work than replacing
> stock BSD BPF with their own hacked version. And the terrible bugs, described
> in their FAQ about broken promisc mode etc, either never existed in reality
> or absolutely inessential in the worst case.

My pet theory is that their main problem is that they didn't increase the socket
buffers (64K is simply not enough for 100Mbit/s full speed).

The other guess is that they are suffering a bit from the synchronous copy
(BPF does the copy asynchronously in the kernel while the system is waiting
for IO etc.). This could be fixed by a libpcap that uses a few worker threads
for packet recvmsg'ing.

Their main problem probably is that they think Linux is BSD, and it is not @)

-Andi

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/