Another question. It seems that suricata can go into ZC mode without using zbalance_ipc, however, the card I have (82599) only supports RSS values of upto 16. Would I be able to take advantage of all the cores I have with suri in this instance if I moved to a card that can support more RSS entries (e.g., fm10k : 128 ) ?
Jim On 10/14/2016 03:53 AM, Alfredo Cardigliano wrote: > Hi Jim > please note that when using distribution to multiple applications (using a > comma-separated list in -n), > the fan-out API is used which supports up to 32 egress queues total, in your > case you are using 73 queues, > thus I guess only the first 32 instances are receiving traffic (and maybe > duplicated traffic due to a wrong > egress mask) . I will add a check for this in zbalance_ipc to avoid this kind > of misconfigurations. > > Alfredo > >> On 13 Oct 2016, at 22:35, Jim Hranicky <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I'm testing out a new server (36 cores, 72 with HT) using >> zbalance_ipc, and it seems occasionally some packets are >> getting sent to multiple processes. >> >> I'm currently running zbalance_ipc like so: >> >> /usr/local/pf/bin/zbalance_ipc -i zc:ens5f0 -m 4 -n 72,1 -c 99 -g 0 -S 1 >> >> with 72 snorts like so: >> >> /usr/sbin/snort -D -i zc:99@$i --daq-dir=/usr/lib64/daq \ >> --daq-var clusterid=99 --daq-var bindcpu=$i --daq pfring_zc \ >> -c /etc/snort/ufirt-snort-pf-ewan.conf -l /var/log/snort69 -R ($i + 1) >> >> I've got a custom HTTP rule to catch GETs with a particular >> user-agent. I run 100 GETs, and each GET request has the run >> number and timestamp in the url. (GET /1/<ts>, GET /2/<ts>, etc) >> and this is what I end up getting when I check the GETs : >> >> 1 GET /11 >> 1 GET /2 >> 1 GET /30 >> 1 GET /34 >> 1 GET /37 >> 1 GET /5 >> 1 GET /59 >> 1 GET /62 >> 1 GET /70 >> 1 GET /8 >> 1 GET /83 >> 1 GET /84 >> 1 GET /9 >> 1 GET /90 >> 1 GET /94 >> 1 GET /95 >> 16 GET /97 >> 20 GET /12 >> 20 GET /38 >> >> Obviously I'm still running into packet loss, but several of the >> GETs are getting sent to multiple processes: >> >> ens5f0.33 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.53 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.42 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.44 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.46 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.35 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.67 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.34 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.36 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.62 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.70 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.65 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.57 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.63 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.68 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.38 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.49 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.61 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.32 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> ens5f0.72 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1 >> >> Is this an issue with the zbalance_ipc hash? I tried using >> >> -m 1 >> >> but it seemed like I ended up dropping even more packets. >> >> Any advice/pointers appreciated. >> >> -- >> Jim Hranicky >> Data Security Specialist >> UF Information Technology >> 105 NW 16TH ST Room #104 GAINESVILLE FL 32603-1826 >> 352-273-1341 >> _______________________________________________ >> Ntop-misc mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc > > _______________________________________________ > Ntop-misc mailing list > [email protected] > http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc > _______________________________________________ Ntop-misc mailing list [email protected] http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc
