[ronnie sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

Send the patch in and I'll lok at it.

On 5/7/05, didier <dgautheron@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ronnie sahlberg wrote:
> >
> >
> > Another unrelated performance issue i belive is there, but have not
> > collected hard data for yet it that i suspect that the ghashtable
> > routines are slow for how we use them.
> > I do see a huge slowdown in filtering when hashtable intensive
> > functions such as TCP analysis is used and there is a massive numnber
> > of different tcp sessions in the trace.
> I don't fully understand the code but do we really need the
> tcp_rel_seq_chunk hash for relative sequence?
> That's a hash node +data per TCP packet (at least 24 bytes).
> The data is also saved in the TCP conversation.
> 
> I have code running which remove it whitout ill effect, as far as I can
> tell that is.
> Didier
> 
>