Snort mailing list archives
Re: high packet loss - low throughput
From: Michal Purzynski <michal () rsbac org>
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 12:16:06 +0200
On 7/21/13 2:22 AM, Joel Esler wrote:
On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Michal Purzynski <michal () rsbac org <mailto:michal () rsbac org>> wrote:Not really, SO is so wonderful you can enable and disable functionality on demand, and so I've done. The box is running snort and netsniff-ng only, has around 20 processes of snort (24 execution threads with HT enabled).The sourcefire company claims to achieve 1Gbit/sec per CPU core. I find it actualy hard to believe as the "empty" snort used to do around 250-300Mbit/sec per core here. Empty as in no rules at all.Even more. But we have a dedicated appliance specifically tuned with special drivers to run Snort very fast. You are doing this, I assume on commodity hardware, on a stock OS, running many things (Security Onion)
Still - 45Mbit/sec per instance with packet loss is disappointing. And 100 would be too.
Also, I'm running Intel and pf_ring, can try a Myricom (and not pf_ring). I won't try anything more expensive like FPGA accelerated cards, since I find them too limited and having no real advantage over Myricom and a lot of downsides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ See everything from the browser to the database with AppDynamics Get end-to-end visibility with application monitoring from AppDynamics Isolate bottlenecks and diagnose root cause in seconds. Start your free trial of AppDynamics Pro today! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48808831&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ 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://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=snort-users Please visit http://blog.snort.org to stay current on all the latest Snort news!
Current thread:
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput, (continued)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 18)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput waldo kitty (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput waldo kitty (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput rmkml (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput waldo kitty (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput waldo kitty (Jul 19)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 20)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Joel Esler (Jul 20)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Joel Esler (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput beenph (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Joel Esler (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 21)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 22)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Livio Ricciulli (Jul 22)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Michal Purzynski (Jul 23)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput Livio Ricciulli (Jul 23)
- Re: high packet loss - low throughput beenph (Jul 21)