http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1650
ulf.lamping@xxxxxx changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution| |INVALID
------- Comment #4 from ulf.lamping@xxxxxx 2007-10-10 16:05 GMT -------
So we have: input -> buffer -> output
If the input rate (incoming packets) is higher than the output rate (display of
packets in Wireshark), a ringbuffer with limited size *must* exceed it's limit
sooner or later. This is a principle problem and we can't do anything against
this. BTW: Simply dropping some packets on the incoming side or in the buffer
is not an option here IMHO.
Your real problem here is a peak load (20MB file + overhead), that obviously
doesn't fit into the amount of ringbuffer (3MB) available. This causes the
buffer to overflow and therefore the error message (ok, the error text itself
could be improved).
Try to increase the number and the size of the ringbuffer files (e.g. 10 files
with 10MB seems more reasonable in your case).
I'm marking this on as invalid, as we cannot avoid a buffer overflow in this
scenario ...
--
Configure bugmail: http://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.