Subject: Re: packet capturing
To: Darren Reed <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 01/22/2004 11:22:11
In message <Pine.NEB.firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Darren Reed writes:
>On Wed, 21 Jan 2004, Jonathan Stone wrote:
>> At that point one should start to ask, seriously, just what
>> Luca Deri's paper is telling us.
>Just one thing, really:
>Passive packet capture in stock linux systems is crap :-)
>(And I defy you to convince me that this is not the case :)
Why would I even try? :-/.
But the original objection I had was to smb's comment about ``stock
systems'' (note: unqualified in the original) being bad at packet
capture on a NetBSD mailing list. As opposed to ``stock Linux
systems'' bing bad at passive packet capture.
And even that is marginally on-topic for a NetBSD technical list.
>> 6. As I said earlier: driver polling __is not necessary__.
>> Modern NICs in the US $20 range provide good Rx interrupt deferal,
>> to the point where polling simply doesn't buy anything significant.
>> Really. I tell you three times.
>The paper aside, are 100BT nics coming out with interrupt deferal or
>is it only 1000BT ones ? What about 4 port 1000BT cards (can you get
>them, even) ?
Intel pro/1000 quad-port is available retail. I know of at least two
embedded resellers/board vendors selling boards with PCI(-X) bridges,
and two dual-port Broadcom chips.