Guy Harris <g...@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> The longer timeout can reduce capturing overhead, and if you're
> capturing a high volume of traffic to a file, it's probably the right
> timeout to have. If, however, you're printing packets to the console,
> you're probably doomed if it's a high volume of traffic, and may want
> less of a delay if it's a low volume of traffic.
> Should we reduce the timeout if -w isn't specified - or do so if -w
> isn't specified *and* if we're outputting to a terminal (isatty(1)
> returns a non-zero value)? Should we use immediate mode if libpcap
Yes, I think that -w not specified, and isatty()==1.
> supports it? Should we offer a command-line option to override the
> default? (I'd prefer to have the default be appropriate for most
> cases, which may mean a different default if printing packets or if
I think that we should be able to override things.
I had hoped to spend time on tcpdump over the holidays, but IETF nomcom work
ate my brain.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
_______________________________________________
tcpdump-workers mailing list
tcpdump-workers@lists.tcpdump.org
https://lists.sandelman.ca/mailman/listinfo/tcpdump-workers
