> I really don't understand. Why are using a NetBSD mailing list to
> discuss the poor quality-of-implementation of Linux packet-capture
> tools?

Because NetBSD uses BPF and libpcap...

>  The decidely weak paper that SMB cited does a lousy job of
> using bpf (by the standards of published prior art) using bpf, yet
> even so it's still quite competitive.

> My local datapoint: with bge drivers tuned for low latency (high
> ihterrupt load), running in a P4 Xeon 3.06Ghz under test, I can
[...]

Maybe you could do us the honour or repeating your tests using a
host that is of similar configuration to the SUT (System Under Test)
in the paper - ie. ~33% CPU speed of the driver (packet generator).

Darren