Home page logo
/

wireshark logo Wireshark mailing list archives

Re: Memory consumption in tshark
From: Evan Huus <eapache () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:38:08 -0400

We already discard a great deal of state in (single-pass) tshark that we
keep around in Wireshark (or two-pass tshark). We do need to keep some,
though. It's only a bug if we're keeping more than we actually need, and
that's not determinable from the information we have here. Dario, if you
could get us a memory profile of tshark in this situation (through
valgrind's massif tool, for example) that would help us debug further.

I dislike the idea of two-pass by default for exactly this reason: people
expect tshark to be relatively state-less. This is already not the case,
but it's a lot worse in two-pass mode. It might even make sense to add a
--state-less flag to tshark that disables all options which require state.
I don't know how feasible that would be however.

Evan


On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Joerg Mayer <jmayer () loplof de> wrote:

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 06:53:01PM +0200, Jakub Zawadzki wrote:
./tshark -r traffic.all -Y "dns.qry.name.len > 50" -w longnames.pcap

Used memory grows continuously, up to over 3GB of ram. At this point
my pc goes thrashing and I must kill tshark.
That's not what I expected. I expected the memory to grow up to a
certain size, then stop, feeding the output file.
Any idea about what happens? Any suggestion on how to debug it?

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 02:40:07PM +0000, Anders Broman wrote:

No it will not; as state and stuff accumulates memory grows until
*shark runs out of memory your mileage on

Isn't it a bug? Do we need some special option for such case, or reusing
single pass tshark is good enough?
We should anyway do -2 pass default where we have a file (and not pipe).

IMO it's a bug. While we need to keep a lot of state for Wireshark, we
don't need
(most of) it for tshark.

 Ciao
      Jörg

--
Joerg Mayer                                           <jmayer () loplof de>
We are stuck with technology when what we really want is just stuff that
works. Some say that should read Microsoft instead of technology.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org
?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe

  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault