Snort mailing list archives
Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ
From: beenph <beenph () gmail com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 18:14:18 -0400
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 5:30 PM, livio Ricciulli <livio () metaflows com> wrote:
The Intel ixgbe(10Gb) driver comes with a script called set_irq_affinity which I use to set the card IRQs to the CPUs - in /proc/interrupts it looks like a descending staircase pattern. good. The most recent PF_RING DAQ has a parameter to specifically bind Snort/DAQ instances to CPU ids so I'm using that in a similar loop to the one used to start Snort on the Metaflows site.
I was personally refering to network driver queues. You can set those at driver level.
The site says: for i in `seq 0 1 23`; do snort -c snort.serv.conf -N -A none -i eth3 --daq-dir /usr/local/lib/daq \ --daq pfring --daq-var clusterid=10 & done I do not think binding CPU is a good idea..Notice that the IXGBE has 16 queues but we spawn 24 threads with no binding..That was the best performance on our hardware.
CPU Binding is something important, QUEUE wise if you bind a snort process to the same network QUEUE then you can clearly start to benchmark. If you spread the network queue load on multiple CPU and do not bind process to the same CPU then your adding context switching in the mix which i think is bad at high throuput.
IIRC you should have as many snort thread as network QUEUE your card have, and you should balance your IRQ on CPU and not CORE, thus if you have 16 dual core cpu, then you chould bind 2 cpu (4 core) to each snort process. I do not know how got your network card driver but mabey you would like to compile it from source. Ref: http://www.intel.com/support/network/adapter/pro100/sb/cs-032530.htm Pfring uses it's own ixgbe driver..
Still has original driver feature, mainly DMA functions are patched iirc, so its still tunnable. Is the PF_RING drivers up to date? Seem's like its a few version behind, could it have impact...mabey ntop people know.
Also you have alot of tunning depending on how your setup so you can tune your driver to your needs. -elz On our hardware, we had a slight gain by using hyperthreading using 24 snort processes on a dual X5670 (6 cores+hyperthreading) rather than 12 snort processes like you suggest. Also, as I said, in our tests, letting the CPU roam wild was the best.. But it is hard to generalize..
Having 6 physical core (12 if their dual) and 16 queue, i would set 2 network QUEUE per cpu (not core) (and spread the 4 other queue over all cores) Now this will depend on the network activity but i still strongly think you shouldn't spread workload on CPU threads, enable hyperthreading shouldn't do any good except if you follow the same logic and still use CPU logic thus binding 4 CPU thead ( 2 thread per core 2 core) to a snort instance and a snort queue. -elz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ Snort-users mailing list Snort-users () lists sourceforge net Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users Snort-users list archive: http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users Please visit http://blog.snort.org to stay current on all the latest Snort news!
Current thread:
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ, (continued)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Joel Esler (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Jack (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Peter Bates (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Joel Esler (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Joel Esler (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Peter Bates (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ beenph (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ beenph (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Luca Deri (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Joel Esler (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Luca Deri (Sep 10)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Peter Bates (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ livio Ricciulli (Sep 04)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Peter Bates (Sep 05)
- Message not available
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Peter Bates (Sep 06)
- Re: Snort + PF_RING + DAQ Joel Esler (Sep 06)