<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Akif,<br>
<br>
I have not tried packet.h, but I see the same behavior: Wireshark
grabs data fast and reliably, while my code using C library has those
delays, which I cannot get rid of. I can receive ~55 packets (8K each)
reliably, with no any delays, but for 64 of them I always have a delay.
setmintocopy does not change anything, as in your case. I also changed
the buffer size , that does not change the delay either, once it is
large enough.<br>
<br>
I am stack and really do not know what I can do. I talked to the
manufacturer of my card (Chesio), but they have no idea why that
happens either.<br>
<br>
Anton<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:SNT143-w65F7822DA5DE6D4AD0C9FF80CE0@phx.gbl"
type="cite">
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style>Hi,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The only thing that amazes me is Wireshark. Why is wireshark
able to capture with such accuracy even if it uses winpcap. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Is it possible to achieve accuracy if i used packet.h functions
to receive and then pcap to send the packets. Anton have you tried that?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>BR</div>
<div><br>
<br>
> From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org</a><br>
> Subject: Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 8<br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 02:08:28 -0700<br>
> <br>
> Send Winpcap-users mailing list submissions to<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> <br>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org</a><br>
> <br>
> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-owner@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-owner@winpcap.org</a><br>
> <br>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
> than "Re: Contents of Winpcap-users digest..."<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> Today's Topics:<br>
> <br>
> 1. Re: PPP capture (Gianluca Varenni)<br>
> 2. Re: Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7 (Akif Usman)<br>
> <br>
> <br>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> <br>
> Message: 1<br>
> Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:59:25 -0700<br>
> From: Gianluca Varenni <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com"><Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com></a><br>
> To: Anton Tremsin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ast@ssl.berkeley.edu"><ast@ssl.berkeley.edu></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">"winpcap-users@winpcap.org"</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org"><winpcap-users@winpcap.org></a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> Message-ID:<br>
>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:6A8F2E88CFF83C43A6AFF7FAC775B9FC07151743D9@MAILBOXES2.nbttech.com"><6A8F2E88CFF83C43A6AFF7FAC775B9FC07151743D9@MAILBOXES2.nbttech.com></a><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
> <br>
> Anton,<br>
> <br>
> If I remember well, you are capturing from Ethernet, Akif is
capturing from PPP. The code paths for the two types of devices are
completely different (Ethernet goes through the WinPcap kernel driver,
PPP gets captured through Netmon).<br>
> <br>
> Have a nice day<br>
> GV<br>
> <br>
> From: Anton Tremsin [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ast@ssl.berkeley.edu">mailto:ast@ssl.berkeley.edu</a>]<br>
> Sent: Monday, March 14, 2011 11:43 PM<br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> Cc: Gianluca Varenni<br>
> Subject: Re: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> <br>
> Akif, Gianluca,<br>
> <br>
> As I mentioned in my previous messages, I have exactly the same
problem of delayed packages, with mintocopy set even to 0 (tried other
values as well). I am always sending a set of 64 packets of 8Kbytes
each (that is one image data). The packets are not lost, they always
arrive. However, some of them come with no delay (varied number of
them, sometimes 62, sometimes 57, etc), while the rest of them come
exactly after the delay equal to the setting of the timeout, which I
varied between 1 and 10000 milliseconds. There is no timeout reported
for the packets to arrive with the delay.<br>
> <br>
> I will be very glad if that issue can be solved, which has
probably the same cause as in Akif's application.<br>
> <br>
> Thanks a lot,<br>
> <br>
> Anton<br>
> <br>
> Akif,<br>
> <br>
> This is probably due to the mintocopy and timeout of WinPcap.
WinPcap does not deliver you the packets immediately after they are
received by the driver. Packets are batched in kernel mode and
delivered to the receiving application when<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> There are at least mintocopy bytes in the kernel buffer<br>
> <br>
> After a certain timeout<br>
> (whatever happens first).<br>
> <br>
> In order to reduce the delay, you will need to either reduce the
timeout or the mintocopy.<br>
> <br>
> Have a nice day<br>
> GV<br>
> <br>
> From:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org"><mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org></a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a>] On Behalf Of Akif Usman<br>
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:20 AM<br>
> To:
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org"><mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org></a><br>
> Subject: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> <br>
> HI,<br>
> <br>
> I have installed the winpcap version 3.1 beta and i am capturing
from a PPP interface and it captures perfectly. Now i am trying to
capture from the same PPP interface using my LIBPCAP program and
forward it to another Ethernet interface that connects further to a
second computer (Ethernet NIC) which also has wireshark running on it.
When i capture from the second computer i get a strange offset of 0.5
seconds after every x packets. This is very strange. I dont know why
wireshark is able to capture from PPP interface on the first computer
with proper accuracy and why my LIBPCAP program, which is just
forwarding the packets, is introducing a 0.5s [:-O] delay. Please help
me out as soon as somebody can.<br>
> <br>
> Best Regards<br>
> Fika<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> <br>
> Winpcap-users mailing list<br>
> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org">Winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org"><mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org></a><br>
> <br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110315/7cb51127/attachment-0001.html"><http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110315/7cb51127/attachment-0001.html></a><br>
> <br>
> ------------------------------<br>
> <br>
> Message: 2<br>
> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 10:08:25 +0100<br>
> From: Akif Usman <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:akif.usman@hotmail.com"><akif.usman@hotmail.com></a><br>
> To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org"><winpcap-users@winpcap.org></a><br>
> Subject: Re: [Winpcap-users] Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7<br>
> Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:SNT143-w3812119493BFBBEDF1C2EC80CE0@phx.gbl"><SNT143-w3812119493BFBBEDF1C2EC80CE0@phx.gbl></a><br>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> HI,<br>
> There are some questiosn i need to ask. Why does wireshark give no
delay upon capture even though it uses Winpcap? <br>
> I am using windows xp for capture and i have checked the capture
on ethernet and there seems to be no problems at all from the capture
on ethernet. I have tried changing mintocopy and the timeout but it
gives me no changes in the performance? Any ideas why?<br>
> <br>
> BR<br>
> <br>
> > From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > Subject: Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7<br>
> > To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 12:00:02 -0700<br>
> > <br>
> > Send Winpcap-users mailing list submissions to<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > <br>
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-request@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > <br>
> > You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-owner@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-owner@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > <br>
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more
specific<br>
> > than "Re: Contents of Winpcap-users digest..."<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Today's Topics:<br>
> > <br>
> > 1. Re: PPP capture (Gianluca Varenni)<br>
> > 2. Re: PPP capture (Anton Tremsin)<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> > <br>
> > Message: 1<br>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 18:44:54 -0700<br>
> > From: Gianluca Varenni <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com"><Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com></a><br>
> > To: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">"winpcap-users@winpcap.org"</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org"><winpcap-users@winpcap.org></a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> > Message-ID:<br>
> >
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:6A8F2E88CFF83C43A6AFF7FAC775B9FC07151739AA@MAILBOXES2.nbttech.com"><6A8F2E88CFF83C43A6AFF7FAC775B9FC07151739AA@MAILBOXES2.nbttech.com></a><br>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"<br>
> > <br>
> > Akif,<br>
> > <br>
> > This is probably due to the mintocopy and timeout of WinPcap.
WinPcap does not deliver you the packets immediately after they are
received by the driver. Packets are batched in kernel mode and
delivered to the receiving application when<br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > - There are at least mintocopy bytes in the kernel buffer<br>
> > <br>
> > - After a certain timeout<br>
> > (whatever happens first).<br>
> > <br>
> > In order to reduce the delay, you will need to either reduce
the timeout or the mintocopy.<br>
> > <br>
> > Have a nice day<br>
> > GV<br>
> > <br>
> > From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a>] On Behalf Of Akif Usman<br>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:20 AM<br>
> > To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > Subject: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> > <br>
> > HI,<br>
> > <br>
> > I have installed the winpcap version 3.1 beta and i am
capturing from a PPP interface and it captures perfectly. Now i am
trying to capture from the same PPP interface using my LIBPCAP program
and forward it to another Ethernet interface that connects further to a
second computer (Ethernet NIC) which also has wireshark running on it.
When i capture from the second computer i get a strange offset of 0.5
seconds after every x packets. This is very strange. I dont know why
wireshark is able to capture from PPP interface on the first computer
with proper accuracy and why my LIBPCAP program, which is just
forwarding the packets, is introducing a 0.5s [:-O] delay. Please help
me out as soon as somebody can.<br>
> > <br>
> > Best Regards<br>
> > Fika<br>
> > -------------- next part --------------<br>
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> > URL:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110314/fcd4e478/attachment-0001.html"><http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110314/fcd4e478/attachment-0001.html></a><br>
> > <br>
> > ------------------------------<br>
> > <br>
> > Message: 2<br>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2011 23:42:30 -0700<br>
> > From: Anton Tremsin <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ast@ssl.berkeley.edu"><ast@ssl.berkeley.edu></a><br>
> > To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > Cc: Gianluca Varenni <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com"><Gianluca.Varenni@riverbed.com></a><br>
> > Subject: Re: [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> > Message-ID: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:4D7F0A56.1070207@ssl.berkeley.edu"><4D7F0A56.1070207@ssl.berkeley.edu></a><br>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1";
Format="flowed"<br>
> > <br>
> > Akif, Gianluca,<br>
> > <br>
> > As I mentioned in my previous messages, I have exactly the
same problem <br>
> > of delayed packages, with mintocopy set even to 0 (tried
other values as <br>
> > well). I am always sending a set of 64 packets of 8Kbytes
each (that is <br>
> > one image data). The packets are not lost, they always
arrive. However, <br>
> > some of them come with no delay (varied number of them,
sometimes 62, <br>
> > sometimes 57, etc), while the rest of them come exactly after
the delay <br>
> > equal to the setting of the timeout, which I varied between 1
and 10000 <br>
> > milliseconds. There is no timeout reported for the packets to
arrive <br>
> > with the delay.<br>
> > <br>
> > I will be very glad if that issue can be solved, which has
probably the <br>
> > same cause as in Akif's application.<br>
> > <br>
> > Thanks a lot,<br>
> > <br>
> > Anton<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Akif,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > This is probably due to the mintocopy and timeout of
WinPcap. WinPcap <br>
> > > does not deliver you the packets immediately after they
are received <br>
> > > by the driver. Packets are batched in kernel mode and
delivered to the <br>
> > > receiving application when<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - There are at least mintocopy bytes in the kernel buffer<br>
> > ><br>
> > > - After a certain timeout<br>
> > ><br>
> > > (whatever happens first).<br>
> > ><br>
> > > In order to reduce the delay, you will need to either
reduce the <br>
> > > timeout or the mintocopy.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Have a nice day<br>
> > ><br>
> > > GV<br>
> > ><br>
> > > *From:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a> <br>
> > > [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org">mailto:winpcap-users-bounces@winpcap.org</a>] *On Behalf Of
*Akif Usman<br>
> > > *Sent:* Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:20 AM<br>
> > > *To:* <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:winpcap-users@winpcap.org">winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > > *Subject:* [Winpcap-users] PPP capture<br>
> > ><br>
> > > HI,<br>
> > ><br>
> > > I have installed the winpcap version 3.1 beta and i am
capturing from <br>
> > > a PPP interface and it captures perfectly. Now i am
trying to capture <br>
> > > from the same PPP interface using my LIBPCAP program and
forward it to <br>
> > > another Ethernet interface that connects further to a
second computer <br>
> > > (Ethernet NIC) which also has wireshark running on it.
When i capture <br>
> > > from the second computer i get a strange offset of 0.5
seconds after <br>
> > > every x packets. This is very strange. I dont know why
wireshark is <br>
> > > able to capture from PPP interface on the first computer
with proper <br>
> > > accuracy and why my LIBPCAP program, which is just
forwarding the <br>
> > > packets, is introducing a 0.5s [:-O] delay. Please help
me out as soon <br>
> > > as somebody can.<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Best Regards<br>
> > ><br>
> > > Fika<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > > _______________________________________________<br>
> > > Winpcap-users mailing list<br>
> > > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org">Winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> > > <br>
> > <br>
> > -------------- next part --------------<br>
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> > URL:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110314/fde1d594/attachment-0001.html"><http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110314/fde1d594/attachment-0001.html></a><br>
> > <br>
> > ------------------------------<br>
> > <br>
> > _______________________________________________<br>
> > Winpcap-users mailing list<br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org">Winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> > <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > End of Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 7<br>
> > ********************************************<br>
> <br>
> -------------- next part --------------<br>
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
> URL:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110316/cd1b5258/attachment.html"><http://www.winpcap.org/pipermail/winpcap-users/attachments/20110316/cd1b5258/attachment.html></a><br>
> <br>
> ------------------------------<br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Winpcap-users mailing list<br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org">Winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a><br>
> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> End of Winpcap-users Digest, Vol 72, Issue 8<br>
> ********************************************<br>
</div>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Winpcap-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Winpcap-users@winpcap.org">Winpcap-users@winpcap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users">https://www.winpcap.org/mailman/listinfo/winpcap-users</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Anton S. Tremsin, Ph.D.
Space Sciences Laboratory
University of California at Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720
Tel: (510) 642 4554
</pre>
</body>
</html>