[Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping@xxxxxx>]

Guy Harris wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 08:24:37PM +0100, Ulf Lamping wrote:
>  
>
> > Do you really have a use case for this? (see below)
> >    
>
> I don't, but I assume Laurent Deniel, who put that feature in, did, or
> knew people who did, and I think I've seen other people asking how they
> can do that - there might be stuff in the mail archives about this.
>
> I think their use case is that they want to run a capture for a very
> long time, but not to have a single giant capture file - they want the
> file carved into smaller pieces, to cut the amount of data in a single
> file and thus to make it less painful to, for example, process the file
> in Ethereal.
>
>  
I see this use case and I sometimes need this.

But that's an explanation for the ring buffer (or multiple files) 
feature, but that's no explanation for *infinite* ring buffer files.

> > > > That's also the reason, that I wanted to have "Use ring buffer" checked 
> > > > by default, as that's the typical thing to have.
> > > >        
> > > The typical thing to have is to capture to more than one file?  That's
> > > not typical for me.
> > >
> > >      
> > >
> > > > Misunderstanding: typical behaviour, when you use more than one file. If 
> > > >        
> > you use a single file (which is default) this option is pretty useless.
> >    
>
> Then the code needs not to complain about the ring buffer setting when
> Ethereal starts up:
>
> 	ethereal: Ring buffer requested, but capture isn't being saved to a
> 	    permanent file.
> 	ethereal: Ring buffer requested, but no maximum capture file size was
> 	    specified.
>
>  
Sorry, I don't see these warnings.

Maybe we need some sort of error log instead of the console output (at 
least on win32).

Regards, ULFL