Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:57:25 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org> To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bzeeb-lists@lists.zabbadoz.net> Cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] Netflow implementation Message-ID: <20040909195725.GC12168@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409091743120.51837@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net> References: <20040905121111.GA78276@cell.sick.ru> <4140834C.3000306@freebsd.org> <20040909171018.GA11540@cell.sick.ru> <414093DE.A6DC6E67@freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.4.53.0409091743120.51837@e0-0.zab2.int.zabbadoz.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:02:35PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: B> What I'd like to ask but did not because I didn't really have a B> chance to view more than documentation is: B> - what is the memory impact of this node ? It uses a static cache (default size 65k entries). One entry takes 56 bytes, if I don't mistake. B> - can it cope with 50++ Mbit/s UDP worms scanning large subnets ? I haven't tried 50++ Mbit/s of worms, but it works on 100Mbit/s of live traffic, which is full of worms. The answer is: it depends on how large is your CPU and how quick are your worms. Try it and tell me how it goes. :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040909195725.GC12168>