On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 06:37:41PM -0700, Bill Broadley wrote:
On 06/23/2010 10:42 AM, timri...@appahost.com wrote:
The reason for the discussion was Brian's intrusion detection
implementation stored the incoming packets in a hash
table. The key to the hash table was quite
large --
Original Message
Subject: Re: [vox-tech] Memory addressing?
From: Chanoch (Ken) Bloom kbl...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, June 22, 2010 9:46 am
To: lugod's technical discussion forum vox-tech@lists.lugod.org
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:11:44AM -0700, Brian Lavender wrote:
Can
On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 10:42:18AM -0700, timri...@appahost.com wrote:
The reason for the discussion was Brian's intrusion detection
implementation stored the incoming packets in a hash
table. The key to the hash table was quite
large -- inbound IP address, outbound IP address, inbound port,
On 06/23/2010 10:42 AM, timri...@appahost.com wrote:
The reason for the discussion was Brian's intrusion detection
implementation stored the incoming packets in a hash
table. The key to the hash table was quite
large -- inbound IP address, outbound IP address, inbound port, and
outbound port.
On 06/23/2010 11:36 AM, Ken Bloom wrote:
On a 32-bit machine, this will eat up most of the computer's address
space, including *all* application space, and some kernel space (so you
can expect things to segfault).
Assuming no PAE. With PAE often the kernel and other user processes
would be
On 06/23/2010 12:39 PM, Brian Lavender wrote:
What started this is that having a hash provides ideally a O(1). So,
I say that to achieve this, one would ideally want to have a large array
to store your IP addresses and a hashing function that provides good
distribution. To which, Tim pointed
Can someone confirm what is correct?
Tim and I were discussing memory addressing at Crepeville last night
and we had a disagreement about how memory is addressable. I say that
on today's common intel i386 32 bit architecture (in case you are one of
those souls who builds your hardware from
On 06/22/2010 09:46 AM, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 09:11:44AM -0700, Brian Lavender wrote:
Can someone confirm what is correct?
Tim and I were discussing memory addressing at Crepeville last night
and we had a disagreement about how memory is addressable. I say that
