[Oisf-users] Performance on multiple CPUs

[Anoop Saldanha]

On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Gene Albin <gene.albin at gmail.com> wrote:

> So I'm running in autofp mode and I increased the max-pending-packets from
> 50 to 500, then 5000, then 50000.  I saw a dramatic increase from:
> 50 to 500 (17000 packets/sec @ 450sec to 57000 pps at 140s)
> not quite as dramatic from:
> 500 to 5000 ( to 85000pps at 90s)
> and about the same from:
> 5000 to 50000 (to 135000pps at 60s)
>
> My question now is about the tradeoff mentioned in the config file.
>  Mentions negatively impacting caching.  How does it impact caching?  Will I
> see this when running pcaps or in live mode?
>
> Thanks,
> Gene
>
>
Probably polluting_the_cache/breaking_the_cache_coherency for the data used
by other packets.  Either ways I wouldn't second guess the effects of cache
usage when it comes to multiple threads probably ruining data loaded by some
other thread.  I would just be interested about locality of reference with
respect to data used by one thread for whatever time slice it is on the cpu.

** I see that you have tested with max-pending-packets set to 50,000.  Can
you check how Suricata scales from 4 cpu cores to 32 cpu cores, with these
50,000 max-pending-packets, and post the results here?


> On Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 1:07 PM, saldanha <poonaatsoc at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  On 08/03/2011 08:50 AM, Gene Albin wrote:
>>
>> So I just installed Suricata on one of our research computers with lots of
>> cores available.  I'm looking to see what kind of performance boost I get as
>> I bump up the CPU's. After my first run I was surprised to see that I didn't
>> get much of a boost when going from 8 to 32 CPUs.  I was running a 6GB pcap
>> file with a about 17k rules loaded.  The first run on 8 cores took 190sec.
>> The second run on 32 cores took 170 sec.  Looks like something other than
>> CPU is the bottle neck.
>>
>> My first guess is Disk IO.  Any recommendations on how I could
>> check/verify that guess?
>>
>> Gene
>>
>> --
>> Gene Albin
>> gene.albin at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oisf-users mailing listOisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.orghttp://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>
>>
>> * forgot to reply to the list previously
>>
>> Hey Gene.
>>
>> Can you test by increasing the max-pending-packets in the suricata.yaml
>> file to a higher value.  You can try one run with a value of 500 and then
>> try higher values(2000+ suggested.  More the better, as long as you don't
>> hit swap).
>>
>> Once you have set a higher max-pending-packets you can try running
>> suricata in autofp runmode.  autofp mode runs suricata in flow-pinned mode.
>> To do this add this option to your suricata command line
>> "--runmode=autofp.  "
>>
>> sudo suricata -c ./suricata.yaml -r your_pcap.pcap --runmode=autofp
>>
>> With max-pending-packets set to a higher value and with --runmode=autofp,
>> you can test how suricata scales from 4 to 32 cores.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Oisf-users mailing list
>> Oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
>> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Gene Albin
> gene.albin at gmail.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Oisf-users mailing list
> Oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>
>


-- 
Anoop Saldanha
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20110814/74a18d7f/attachment-0002.html>