<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>Here is an example of one of the threads:<br><br>capture.kernel_packets | RxPFReth220 | 4438207<br>capture.kernel_drops | RxPFReth220 | 466880<br>dns.memuse | RxPFReth220 | 3908544<br>dns.memcap_state | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>dns.memcap_global | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.pkts | RxPFReth220 | 4438207<br>decoder.bytes | RxPFReth220 | 3216813731<br>decoder.invalid | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.ipv4 | RxPFReth220 | 4438207<br>decoder.ipv6 | RxPFReth220 | 38<br>decoder.ethernet | RxPFReth220 | 4438207<br>decoder.raw | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.sll | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.tcp | RxPFReth220 | 4229782<br>decoder.udp | RxPFReth220 | 205264<br>decoder.sctp | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.icmpv4 | RxPFReth220 | 3161<br>decoder.icmpv6 | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.ppp | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.pppoe | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.gre | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.vlan | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.vlan_qinq | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.teredo | RxPFReth220 | 38<br>decoder.ipv4_in_ipv6 | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.ipv6_in_ipv6 | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.mpls | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>decoder.avg_pkt_size | RxPFReth220 | 724<br>decoder.max_pkt_size | RxPFReth220 | 1514<br>defrag.ipv4.fragments | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.ipv4.reassembled | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.ipv4.timeouts | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.ipv6.fragments | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.ipv6.reassembled | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.ipv6.timeouts | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>defrag.max_frag_hits | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.sessions | RxPFReth220 | 34053<br>tcp.ssn_memcap_drop | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.pseudo | RxPFReth220 | 11290<br>tcp.pseudo_failed | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.invalid_checksum | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.no_flow | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.reused_ssn | RxPFReth220 | 7<br>tcp.memuse | RxPFReth220 | 21511360<br>tcp.syn | RxPFReth220 | 37423<br>tcp.synack | RxPFReth220 | 34159<br>tcp.rst | RxPFReth220 | 19061<br>tcp.segment_memcap_drop | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>tcp.stream_depth_reached | RxPFReth220 | 100<br>tcp.reassembly_memuse | RxPFReth220 | 40392320000<br>tcp.reassembly_gap | RxPFReth220 | 3348<br>http.memuse | RxPFReth220 | 868151492<br>http.memcap | RxPFReth220 | 0<br>detect.alert | RxPFReth220 | 352<br>flow_mgr.closed_pruned | FlowManagerThread | 3978049<br>flow_mgr.new_pruned | FlowManagerThread | 217874<br>flow_mgr.est_pruned | FlowManagerThread | 407013<br>flow.memuse | FlowManagerThread | 5589481392<br>flow.spare | FlowManagerThread | 16000950<br>flow.emerg_mode_entered | FlowManagerThread | 0<br>flow.emerg_mode_over | FlowManagerThread | 0<br><br><br><div>> Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 10:13:23 +0200<br>> Subject: Re: [Oisf-users] Suricata 2.1beta3 vs 2.0.7<br>> From: petermanev@gmail.com<br>> To: coolyasha@hotmail.com<br>> CC: modversion@gmail.com; oisf-users@lists.openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> <br>> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Yasha Zislin <coolyasha@hotmail.com> wrote:<br>> > I think I've done that before and it was less that 96% of my RAM.<br>> ><br>> > All memcaps together equal to 58 gigs (I have 140gigs total RAM).<br>> > Also PFRING utilizes some RAM. When 2.0.7 starts it is using 50% of RAM.<br>> > After couple of days it gets to 96% and stays there.<br>> <br>> Ok. Anything unusual in the stats.log - decoder invalid counters,<br>> memcaps reached, tcp gaps, emergency mode entered .. ?<br>> <br>> ><br>> >> Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 15:15:31 +0200<br>> ><br>> >> Subject: Re: [Oisf-users] Suricata 2.1beta3 vs 2.0.7<br>> >> From: petermanev@gmail.com<br>> >> To: coolyasha@hotmail.com<br>> >> CC: modversion@gmail.com; oisf-users@lists.openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> >><br>> >> On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Yasha Zislin <coolyasha@hotmail.com><br>> >> wrote:<br>> >> > Correct.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > I've also tried a slight different version of the config to add MODBUS<br>> >> > functionality and change toserver to dp for the ports in application<br>> >> > layer<br>> >> > detection section of the config file. I've basically compared config<br>> >> > that<br>> >> > came with the beta version to make sure things are correct and I am no<br>> >> > using<br>> >> > depricated stuff. Either way, the same result.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > It feels like something changed with memory. beta version is only using<br>> >> > about 40% of RAM but 2.0.7 is using 96%. It could be the reason for the<br>> >> > packet loss on beta.<br>> >><br>> >> So is your memcap sum total in your yaml equal to that 40% or to the<br>> >> 96% you are mentioning? (or that is irrelevant?)<br>> >><br>> >> > Just thinking out loud.<br>> >> ><br>> >> > Thanks.<br>> >> ><br>> >> >> Date: Fri, 1 May 2015 12:10:40 +0200<br>> >> >> Subject: Re: [Oisf-users] Suricata 2.1beta3 vs 2.0.7<br>> >> >> From: petermanev@gmail.com<br>> >> >> To: coolyasha@hotmail.com<br>> >> >> CC: modversion@gmail.com; oisf-users@lists.openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> >> ><br>> >> >><br>> >> >> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:13 PM, Yasha Zislin <coolyasha@hotmail.com><br>> >> >> wrote:<br>> >> >> > I am inspecting two span ports. Each has about 15 million packets per<br>> >> >> > minute, mostly HTTP. Bandwidth is about 2 Gbps on each.<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > I've noticed one new message on startup with beta version.<br>> >> >> > VLAN disabled, setting cluster type to CLUSTER_FLOW_5_TUPLE<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > Not sure if this has any effect.<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > ________________________________<br>> >> >> > Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2015 23:10:09 +0800<br>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Oisf-users] Suricata 2.1beta3 vs 2.0.7<br>> >> >> > From: modversion@gmail.com<br>> >> >> > To: coolyasha@hotmail.com<br>> >> >> > CC: oisf-users@lists.openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > It seems that 2.0.7 work better than 2.1beta3.<br>> >> >> > What's the bandwidth you protect by suricata ? 10Gbps or 20Gbps ?<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > 2015-04-30 23:00 GMT+08:00 Yasha Zislin <coolyasha@hotmail.com>:<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > I have tweaked my configuration to have Suricata 2.0.7 run with<br>> >> >> > minimal<br>> >> >> > packet loss less than 0.01%. This set up does use a ton of RAM 95% of<br>> >> >> > 140GB.<br>> >> >> > As soon as I switch to Suricata 2.1beta3 and run it with the same<br>> >> >> > config, I<br>> >> >> > get 50% packet loss but RAM utilization stays around 50%.<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > What was changed to have such a big impact?<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> Just to confirm - you are running the same Suricata config the only<br>> >> >> thing you have changed is suricata from 2.0.7 to 2.1beta3, correct?<br>> >> >> (nothing else)<br>> >> >><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > P.S. I am using PF_RING.<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > Thanks.<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > _______________________________________________<br>> >> >> > Suricata IDS Users mailing list: oisf-users@openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> >> >> > Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Support:<br>> >> >> > http://suricata-ids.org/support/<br>> >> >> > List:<br>> >> >> > https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users<br>> >> >> > Suricata User Conference November 4 & 5 in Barcelona:<br>> >> >> > http://oisfevents.net<br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> ><br>> >> >> > _______________________________________________<br>> >> >> > Suricata IDS Users mailing list: oisf-users@openinfosecfoundation.org<br>> >> >> > Site: http://suricata-ids.org | Support:<br>> >> >> > http://suricata-ids.org/support/<br>> >> >> > List:<br>> >> >> > https://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users<br>> >> >> > Suricata User Conference November 4 & 5 in Barcelona:<br>> >> >> > http://oisfevents.net<br>> >> >><br>> >> >><br>> >> >><br>> >> >> --<br>> >> >> Regards,<br>> >> >> Peter Manev<br>> >><br>> >><br>> >><br>> >> --<br>> >> Regards,<br>> >> Peter Manev<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> Regards,<br>> Peter Manev<br></div> </div></body>
</html>