Wireshark-bugs: [Wireshark-bugs] [Bug 12001] New: Using Profiles from before the upgrade to 2.0.
| Bug ID |
12001
|
| Summary |
Using Profiles from before the upgrade to 2.0.1 is causing WS to consume large amounts of RAM
|
| Product |
Wireshark
|
| Version |
2.0.1
|
| Hardware |
x86
|
| OS |
Windows 7
|
| Status |
CONFIRMED
|
| Severity |
Major
|
| Priority |
Low
|
| Component |
Qt UI
|
| Assignee |
bugzilla-admin@wireshark.org
|
| Reporter |
poe@gmx.us
|
Created attachment 14230 [details]
High RAM usage despite few captured packets when using Profile from previous WS
version
Build Information:
ersion 2.0.1 (v2.0.1-0-g59ea380 from master-2.0)
Copyright 1998-2015 Gerald Combs <gerald@wireshark.org> and contributors.
License GPLv2+: GNU GPL version 2 or later
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html>
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Compiled (64-bit) with Qt 5.3.2, with WinPcap (4_1_3), with libz 1.2.8, with
GLib 2.42.0, with SMI 0.4.8, with c-ares 1.9.1, with Lua 5.2, with GnuTLS
3.2.15, with Gcrypt 1.6.2, with MIT Kerberos, with GeoIP, with QtMultimedia,
with AirPcap.
Running on 64-bit Windows 7 Service Pack 1, build 7601, with locale C, with
WinPcap version 4.1.3 (packet.dll version 4.1.0.2980), based on libpcap version
1.0 branch 1_0_rel0b (20091008), with GnuTLS 3.2.15, with Gcrypt 1.6.2, without
AirPcap.
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-4300U CPU @ 1.90GHz (with SSE4.2), with 3783MB of physical
memory.
--
It looks like the old profiles I had in WS before upgrading to 2.0.1 is causing
2.0.1 to consume lots of RAM when loading a saved trace file (close to 2GB for
a 1.6 MB trace file) or when doing a new capture... and ultimately WS becomes
unresponsive.
Same results on Office LAN and home network, have tested with the two
non-Default Profiles I have and both trigger the same result.
Loading the same file using Default profile or doing a new capture (eth or
wifi) works just fine and consumes little RAM... as expected.
I did not experience this before I upgraded from 2.0.0 to 2.0.1.
You are receiving this mail because:
- You are watching all bug changes.
