Guy Harris wrote:
On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 01:25:30PM +0100, Lars Ruoff wrote:
But for implementation and usability reasons it will be simpler to have
X Next capture file every 1______ kilobyte(s)
O Next capture file every 1______ second(s)
be a radio button group (where exactly one of them is selected
Why? Tethereal supports doing both at the same time:
SYNOPSYS
tethereal [ -a capture autostop condition ] ...
[ -b number of ring buffer files [:duration] ]
...
OPTIONS
-a Specify a criterion that specifies when Tethereal is
to stop writing to a capture file. The criterion is
of the form test:value, where test is one of:
duration
Stop writing to a capture file after value seconds
have elapsed.
filesize
Stop writing to a capture file after it reaches a
size of value kilobytes (where a kilobyte is 1000
bytes, not 1024 bytes).
-b If a maximum capture file size was specified, cause
Tethereal to run in "ring buffer" mode, with the
specified number of files. In "ring buffer" mode,
Tethereal will write to several capture files. Their
name is based on the number of the file and on the
creation date and time.
When the first capture file fills up, Tethereal will
switch to writing to the next file, until it fills up
the last file, at which point it'll discard the data
in the first file (unless 0 is specified, in which
case, the number of files is unlimited) and start
writing to that file and so on.
If the optional duration is specified, Tethereal will
switch also to the next file when the specified number
of seconds has elapsed even if the current file is not
completely fills up.
And I think Ethereal can handle this too.
As you mention it,
currently the "Next capture file every 1______ kilobyte(s)" is
*required* to be set when using a ring buffer.
Is this really a requirement for the ring buffer to have this
limitation, or would it be ok to test, if this condition *or* the other
"Next capture file every 1______ second(s)" is set?
Regards, ULFL
