From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Largent <jlargent@imagelinks.com>
Subject: Re: Re[4]: Linux Help
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:44:38 -0400
Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <1090511078.10762.2.camel@milhouse.imagelinks.com>
References: <20040719235014.4844.SAVAGE-GARDEN@hanikamail.com>
	 <025801c46dba$8bc16af0$530a0a0a@rutgersinsurance.com>
	 <20040720000918.484C.SAVAGE-GARDEN@hanikamail.com>
	 <16636.21568.952345.578826@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
	 <1090432912.4897.8.camel@milhouse.imagelinks.com>
	 <16638.48594.248812.82032@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <16638.48594.248812.82032@cerise.nosuchdomain.co.uk>
List-Id: <linux-admin.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: Glynn Clements <glynn.clements@virgin.net>
Cc: Kev <savage-garden@hanikamail.com>, Linux Admin <linux-admin@vger.kernel.org>

Glynn,
   Thats good to know, for some reason I have always been under the
impression that connection tracking could have a significant memory
requirement.


Jeff

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 15:02, Glynn Clements wrote:
> Jeff Largent wrote:
> 
> >   I'll let you correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't ip filtering also a
> > memory requirement?  I'm thinks specifically of connection tracking. 
> 
> All of them have memory requirements. Connection tracking is probably
> going to be the least significant of those, although, unlike
> user-space daemons, it requires physical RAM rather than swap. Even
> so, connection tracking needs an extra few bytes per connection,
> whereas a daemon which forks for each connection may require a few
> hundred Kb or more per connection.