Reto I agree with Will. If you go to https://svn.ntop.org/trac/changeset?old_path=trunk%2FPF_RING&old=3609&new_path=trunk%2FPF_RING&new=3616
you will see that changes are minor. Can you please tell me how to reproduce the problem you reported? Thanks Luca On Oct 24, 2008, at 11:22 PM, Will Metcalf wrote: > Hmmm actually in the latest version purely pfring based stuff i.e. > pfcount works fine for me, but pcap based stuff doesn't. I found the > following in pcap-linux.c to be the culprit.... > > line 75 //#define HAVE_PF_RING > line 81 #undef HAVE_PF_RING > > needs to be changed to > > line 75 #define HAVE_PF_RING > line 81 //#undef HAVE_PF_RING > > If I git rid of the undef and remove the comment from the define > everything works fine. I couldn't find anywhere else where > HAVE_PF_RING is defined other than in pcap-linux.c.os390. > > Regards, > > Will > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:23 AM, Reto Glauser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> hello >> >> svn -r3609 of pf_ring is the last known version for me which both >> compiles and shows >> reasonable counters. the most recent version fixes compilation >> issues but reports >> mostly dropped packets and uses all the CPU it can get. >> >> regards, >> reto >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ntop-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev >> > _______________________________________________ > Ntop-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev _______________________________________________ Ntop-dev mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-dev
