[Oisf-devel] Cannot saturate bandwidth even with zero rules

[Jen-Cheng(Tommy) Huang]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your response.
I was using snort 2.8 which did not use DAQ and I compiled it with
--enable-inline.
And the inline mode is using libipq.
I rerun the test yesterday and I found that preprocessors in snort could
affect the throughput.
In normal snort inspection procedure, it has decode -> preprocess -> inspect
phases.
When I used packet logging mode in snort where no preprocessors is used and
packet were only decoded, snort was able to run up to line speed (941 Mbps).

The second case is that when I used IPS mode without any rules loaded, the
default preprocessors, such as stream5, frag3, http those were still working
and that made the throughput dropped down to 7xx Mbps.
Does it make sense?

Thanks,
Tommy

On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Dave Remien <dave.remien at gmail.com> wrote:

> Tommy,
>
> Could you describe the snort configuration you used a little more? Snort
> compiled with --enable-inline-init-failopen and the DAQ stuff? Or some other
> method? If using nfq/ipq, what's your iptables config? Are you perchance
> using jumbo packets to test with?
>
> I ask because I've never seen a single nfqueue instance (or ipqueue, but
> that's really a wrapper around nfqueue) be able to forward packets at that
> rate on any x86* platform. Well, so far.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:42 AM, Jen-Cheng(Tommy) Huang <thnbp24 at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Hi Victor,
>> Thanks for your suggestion.
>> I have tried a couple values of max-pending-packets, but the throughput
>> was at most 7xx Mbps.I've tried very large values, such as 2000, 4000, or
>> 10000, but the throughput did not make much difference. It was all around
>> 7xx Mbps. I am sure that I used the right config. When I changed the value
>> to 1, the throughput dropped down to 1xx Mbps. Any other setting I should
>> change? BTW, the command that I used was "suricata -c
>> /etc/suricata/suricata.yaml -q 0". And I did not use dropping privilege
>> package since I ran it as root. All rules were not loaded.
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Tommy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:21 AM, Victor Julien <victor at inliniac.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Jen-Cheng(Tommy) Huang wrote:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> > I just tested suricata inline mode without pf_ring feature.
>>> > My NIC is intel 1Gbps NIC.
>>> > I used netperf TCP_MAERTS as my benchmark.
>>> > When I removed all rules, I supposed suricata should run up to 941 Mbps
>>> > which was what I observed in snort.
>>> > However, I could only see around 700 Mbps. And with the default rule
>>> set
>>> > which I downloaded from emergingthreats.net
>>> > <http://emergingthreats.net/>, the throughput became 4xx Mbps. The
>>> > strange thing was all CPUs were not saturated. (intel core i7).Thus, I
>>> > supposed the cpus were not the bottleneck. But why it couldn't saturate
>>> > the bandwidth?
>>> > Any idea?
>>>
>>> Tommy, you could try to increase the max-pending-packets setting in
>>> suricata.yaml. It defaults to 50. The really high speed setups I've seen
>>> usually require a setting more in the range of 2000 to 4000. It will
>>> cost quite a bit of extra memory though.
>>>
>>> Let me know if that changes anything.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> --
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>> Victor Julien
>>> http://www.inliniac.net/
>>> PGP: http://www.inliniac.net/victorjulien.asc
>>> ---------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oisf-devel mailing list
>> Oisf-devel at openinfosecfoundation.org
>> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-devel
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> "Of course, someone who knows more about this will correct me if I'm
> wrong, and someone who knows less will correct me if I'm right."
> David Palmer (palmer at tybalt.caltech.edu)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-devel/attachments/20101110/1d8f2ba6/attachment-0002.html>