[Jason House <jhouse@xxxxxxxxx>]

Guy Harris wrote:
> > or a buffer in memory
> > (perhaps add it as an option
> 
> Capturing to an in-memory buffer would *HAVE* to be an option - it's
> unacceptable to limit Ethereal's capture size to the available address
> space size on the machine.
> 
> Now, another possibility would be to have it capture to the buffer and,
> when the buffer fills, write to a file and rotate the buffer (or have
> two buffers and flip them) - but that's essentially what we do now,
> albeit without the "standard I/O library" copy, and with a larger write
> size (which runs the risk of inserting brief periods of significant
> capture latency).

Another possibility is to make a memory buffer a specific type of ring
buffer.