From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Nov 27 4:19:51 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from verdi.nethelp.no (verdi.nethelp.no [158.36.41.162]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6160937B419 for ; Tue, 27 Nov 2001 04:19:46 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 53330 invoked by uid 1001); 27 Nov 2001 12:19:44 +0000 (GMT) To: rpjain_1977@eudoramail.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BPF - Packet Reception From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Nov 2001 10:57:08 +0530" References: X-Mailer: Mew version 1.05+ on Emacs 19.34.2 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 13:19:44 +0100 Message-ID: <53328.1006863584@verdi.nethelp.no> Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > In linux, the packet reception can be done efficiently through the usage of ethernet sockets. > > In FreeBSD, one of the option is by using the BPF. But, as already commented, BPF is not a high performance device. It sounds like you're saying that BPF is less efficient than Linux Ethernet sockets. This is somewhat surprising given that one of the traditional problems with Linux for packet sniffing has been low performance. I would recommend you to ask about this on the TCPDUMP list at tcpdump-workers@tcpdump.org Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message