On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 09:13 +0300, Henrik K wrote: > You are making strange and wrong speculations. > Fair enough - now I know this.
> It parses applicable rules into "native C code regexes", instead of running > them through Perl regex engine. It's known to speed up things 15% or so > (look at sa-users archives). As a bonus, it saves some memory. > So I see. Thanks for the correction. > As network rules are usually much more longer in duration, you might not > notice that much difference in total scan time. Also depends on whether you > have big rulesets like Sought. > OK, makes sense. I've noticed that a mass check of local rules can vary quite a lot in run time and that the second run in a session is usually faster. I run a local copy of named, so had assumed that that most of the run time variation was down to remote server loading and contention on my local broadband segments. Martin
