<div dir="ltr">One thing I notice is that whenever 4.0.3 has this issue and I issue a "kill `pidof suricata`" Suricata always logs two errors at the end of the suricata.log file:<br><br><div><Error> - [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_FATAL(171)] - Engine unable to disable detect thread - "W#[THREAD]-[HB#]". Killing engine</div><div><Error> - [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_NAPATECH_INIT_FAILED(219)] - NT_InfoRead() failed: NTAPI is terminating</div><div><br></div><div>The "HB#" from the first error line matches the host buffer seeing the spiraling packet drops. This offending host buffer is always noted in the "suricata.log" file with messages like:<br><br><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level : 25%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level : 51%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level : 75%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level : 100%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level: 26%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level: 53%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level: 80%</div><div><Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level: 100%</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Could this point to an issue with the Napatech code in Suricata - and how it pulls/polls/etc data from the Napatech?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Steve Castellarin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">I made the change to mpm-algo and spm-algo as you asked. Suricata 4.0.3 ran for just over 2 hours then exhibited the same 100% buffer/packets dropping with one CPU pegged at 100%. I'm attaching a .zip with the stats & suricata.log files. At the time of the hangup I noticed that our bandwidth utilization was under 800Mbps.</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Peter Manev <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
<<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'll give those a try now and let you know what happens. In an earlier<br>
> email I noted something and wanted to get your take on it...<br>
><br>
> "I've noticed one thing that's strange. In my YAML file I have the<br>
> "autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets". Yet everytime I run Suricata I<br>
> see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active packets".<br>
> When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML file then that<br>
> message disappears. Any idea on what that is all about?"<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>This is the default setting -<br>
<a href="https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/repository/revisions/master/entry/suricata.yaml.in#L1024" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://redmine.openinfosecfou<wbr>ndation.org/projects/suricata/<wbr>repository/revisions/master/<wbr>entry/suricata.yaml.in#L1024</a><br>
with regards to autofp - but in your case you are using "--napatech<br>
--runmode workers" so it should be unrelated.<br>
<div class="m_4971665175708456799HOEnZb"><div class="m_4971665175708456799h5"><br>
<br>
> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Peter Manev <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Peter,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I reviewed my compile of Suricata 4.0.3 I noticed that I was using<br>
>> > Hyperscan<br>
>> > version 4.7, as opposed to version 4.2 noted in the Suricata<br>
>> > documentation<br>
>> > (<a href="http://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/latest/performance/hyperscan.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://suricata.readthedocs.i<wbr>o/en/latest/performance/hypers<wbr>can.html</a>).<br>
>> > After recompiling with 4.2 I was able to get Suricata 4.0.3 to run for<br>
>> > 42<br>
>> > minutes before it started dropping packets uncontrollably.<br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>> If that made a change in behavior - can you try mpm-algo; ac-ks and<br>
>> spm-algo: bm in the suricata.yaml?<br>
>><br>
>> > I then made a change to /proc/sys/vm/max_map_count based on a note in<br>
>> > Napatech's documentation: "Especially for large host buffer<br>
>> > configurations<br>
>> > it is necessary to adjust the kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"<br>
>> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count). The kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"<br>
>> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count) should be adjusted to (at least) the total<br>
>> > configured host buffer memory in MB multiplied by four.<br>
>> > Example for total host buffer size 128GB (131072MB): 131072*4 = 524288.<br>
>> > Hence the minimum value for "vm.max_map_count" is 524288."<br>
>> ><br>
>> > In my case I'm using 17 host buffers at 2048MB per ((17 * 2048) * 4),<br>
>> > which<br>
>> > would be 139264. My vm.max_map_count previously was 65530 (I guess<br>
>> > default<br>
>> > for Ubuntu 14.04). After changing that and re-running Suricata 4.0.3 it<br>
>> > ran<br>
>> > for 45 minutes before the buffer/CPU issue came back.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> > <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Hi Peter,<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I just realized I responded directly to you instead of the mailing list<br>
>> >> -<br>
>> >> so here's my response, updated.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I made a change to my YAML file for 4.0.3, dropping the<br>
>> >> detect-thread-ratio from 1.5 to 1 and on Friday was able to run<br>
>> >> Suricata<br>
>> >> 4.0.3 for five hours before the issue occurred. This run did handle<br>
>> >> sustained network traffic of 1.2 through 1.7gbps. So that is a step in<br>
>> >> the<br>
>> >> positive direction. I'm going to have a hard time running 4.0.3<br>
>> >> without<br>
>> >> rules, as this unfortunately is our only Suricata instance running our<br>
>> >> rule<br>
>> >> set.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> I've noticed one thing that's strange. In my YAML file I have the<br>
>> >> "autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets". Yet everytime I run<br>
>> >> Suricata I<br>
>> >> see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active<br>
>> >> packets".<br>
>> >> When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML file then<br>
>> >> that<br>
>> >> message disappears. Any idea on what that is all about?<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Peter Manev <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On 18 Jan 2018, at 19:21, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>> wrote:<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> And also, the bandwidth utilization was just over 800Mbps.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> Can you try the same run but this time - load no rules. I would like<br>
>> >>> to<br>
>> >>> see if it would make difference or not in the same amount of time.<br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Hey Peter,<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Those changes didn't help. Around 23+ minutes into the run one<br>
>> >>>> worker<br>
>> >>>> CPU (#30) stayed at 100% while buffer NT11 dropped packets and would<br>
>> >>>> not<br>
>> >>>> recover. I'm attaching a zip file that has the stats.log for that<br>
>> >>>> run, the<br>
>> >>>> suricata.log file as well as the information seen at the command line<br>
>> >>>> after<br>
>> >>>> issuing "/usr/bin/suricata -vvv -c /etc/suricata/suricata.yaml<br>
>> >>>> --napatech<br>
>> >>>> --runmode workers -D".<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> Steve<br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>><br>
>> >>>>> We never see above 2Gbps. When the issue occurred a little bit ago<br>
>> >>>>> I<br>
>> >>>>> was running the Napatech "monitoring" tool and it was saying we were<br>
>> >>>>> between<br>
>> >>>>> 650-900Mbps. I'll note the bandwidth utilization when the next<br>
>> >>>>> issue<br>
>> >>>>> occurs.<br>
>> >>>>><br>
>> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Peter Manev <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> > When you mean the "size of the traffic", are you asking what the<br>
>> >>>>>> > bandwidth<br>
>> >>>>>> > utilization is at the time the issue begins?<br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>> Sorry - i mean the traffic you sniff - 1/5/10...Gbps ?<br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>> ><br>
>> >>>>>> > I will set things up and send you any/all output after the issue<br>
>> >>>>>> > starts.<br>
>> >>>>>> ><br>
>> >>>>>> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> > <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> > wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > Hey Peter,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> > I tried as you asked. Less than 15 minutes after I restarted<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > Suricata I<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > saw<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > my first CPU hitting 100% and one host buffer dropping all<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > packets.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > Shortly<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > after that the second CPU hit 100% and a second host buffer<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > began<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > dropping<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > all packets. I'm attaching the stats.log where you'll see at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:11<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > first host buffer (nt1.drop) starts to register dropped<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > packets,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > then at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:51 you'll see host buffer nt6.drop begin to register<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > dropped<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > packets.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > At that point I issued the kill.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> What is the size of the traffic?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> Can you also try<br>
>> >>>>>> >> detect:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> - profile: high<br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> (as opposed to "custom")<br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> Also if can run it in verbose mode (-vvv) and send me that<br>
>> >>>>>> >> compete<br>
>> >>>>>> >> output after you start having the issues.<br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> Thanks<br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> > Steve<br>
>> >>>>>> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> > <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > Hey Pete,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > Here's the YAML file from the last time I attempted to run<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > 4.0.3 -<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > with<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > network information removed. Let me know if you need<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > anything<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > else<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > from<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > our<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > configuration. I'll also go to the redmine site to open a<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > bug<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > report.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > Steve<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> Hi Steve,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> Can you try without -<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> midstream: true<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> asyn-oneside:true<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> so<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> #midstream: true<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> #asyn-oneside:true<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> and lower the "prealloc-session: 1000000" to 100 000 for<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> example<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> Thank you.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Hey Peter, I didn't know if you had a chance to look at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > stats<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > log<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > and<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > configuration file I sent. So far, running 3.1.1 with<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > updated<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Napatech<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > drivers my system is running without any issues.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> The toughest part of the troubleshooting is that i dont<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> have<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> the set<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> up to reproduce this.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> I didn't see anything that could lead me to definitive<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> conclusion<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> from<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> the stats log.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> Can you please open a bug report on our redmine with the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> details<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> form<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> this mialthread?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> Would it be possible to share the suricata.yaml (privately<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> if<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> you<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> would like works too; remove all networks)?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> Thank you<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> > <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> Here is the zipped stats.log. I restarted the Napatech<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> drivers<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> before<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> running Suricata 4.0.3 to clear out any previous drop<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> counters,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> etc.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> The first time I saw a packet drop was at the 12:20:51<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark, and<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> you'll<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see "nt12.drop" increment. During this time one of the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPUs<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> acting<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> as<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> a<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "worker" was at 100%. But these drops recovered at the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:20:58<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> where<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt12.drop" stays constant at 13803. The big issue<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> triggered at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:05 mark in the file - where one worker CPU was<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> stuck<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> followed<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> by packet drops in host buffer "nt3.drop". Then came a<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> second<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPU<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> (another "worker" CPU) and packet drops in buffer<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt2.drop" at<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:33. I<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> finally killed Suricata just before 12:27:54, where you<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see all<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> host<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> buffers<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> beginning to drop packets.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> I'm also including the output from the "suricata<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> --dump-config"<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> command.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Peter, yes that is correct. I worked for almost a<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > couple<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > weeks<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > with<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Napatech support and they believed the Napatech<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > setup<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > (ntservice.ini<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > and<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > custom NTPL script) are working as they should.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Ok.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> One major difference between Suricata 3.x and 4.0.x in<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> terms of<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Napatech is that they did update the code, some fixes<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> and<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> updated<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> counters.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> There were a bunch of upgrades in Suricata too.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Is it possible to send over a stats.log - when the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> issue<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> starts<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> occuring?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On 11 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> After my last email yesterday I decided to go back<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> to<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> our<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> install of<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Suricata, with<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the upgraded Napatech version. Since then I've<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> seen<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> no<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> packets<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> dropped<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> with sustained bandwidth of between 1 and 1.7Gbps.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> So<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I'm<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> not<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> sure<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> what is<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> going on with my configuration/setup of Suricata<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> So the only thing that you changed is the upgrade<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> of<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Napatech<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> drivers<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> ?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> The Suricata config stayed the same - you just<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> upgraded to<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (from<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1) and the observed effect was - after a while<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> all<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (or<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> most)<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> cpus<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> get<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> pegged at 100% - is that correct ?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Steve Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Hey Peter, no there is no error messages.<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2018 4:37 PM, "Peter Manev"<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <<a href="mailto:petermanev@gmail.com" target="_blank">petermanev@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Steve<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Castellarin<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <<a href="mailto:steve.castellarin@gmail.com" target="_blank">steve.castellarin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > Hey Peter,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Are there any errors msgs in suricata.log when<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> that<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> happens<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> ?<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Thank you<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> --<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> --<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> --<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> >> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> --<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> >> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >> ><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >><br>
>> >>>>>> >> --<br>
>> >>>>>> >> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> >> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>>> ><br>
>> >>>>>> ><br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>><br>
>> >>>>>> --<br>
>> >>>>>> Regards,<br>
>> >>>>>> Peter Manev<br>
>> >>>>><br>
>> >>>>><br>
>> >>>><br>
>> >>><br>
>> >><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> Regards,<br>
>> Peter Manev<br>
><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div></div><span class="m_4971665175708456799HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">--<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter Manev<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>