From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net [64.139.1.69]) by huchra.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 827EF200620 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:23:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shuksan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA1D8800037; Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:23:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.7.2 01/07/2005 with nmh-1.3 To: bloat-devel From: Hal Murray Subject: Re: PF_ring and friends: Options for making Linux suck less when capturing packets In-Reply-To: Message from Stephen Hemminger of "Wed, 19 Oct 2011 09:52:44 PDT." <20111019095244.27354f74@nehalam.linuxnetplumber.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:23:14 -0700 Message-Id: <20111019172314.BA1D8800037@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net> X-BeenThere: bloat-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers working on AQM, device drivers, and networking stacks" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 17:23:15 -0000 > USB sticks are real slow. Even some infinitely fast capture isn't going to > get around that. Get a real SSD and put it in enclosure that supports USB > 3.0? I don't think a SSD is necessary. 100 megabits is 12.5 megabytes. I just did a quick test. I can read 19-20 megabytes/sec from a rotating disk over USB. That's the raw hardware. I don't know how much overhead the file system adds. -- These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.