[Oisf-users] Suricata runs out of memory on startup
Peter Manev
petermanev at gmail.com
Sat Jul 30 15:49:00 UTC 2011
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Gene Albin <gene.albin at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter,
> Sudo suricata ends with the same problem. I'm wondering if there may be
> a difference between the optimization of our suricata.yaml files. Would you
> mind exchanging files so that we can compare?
>
> Gene
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:05 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:59 PM, Gene Albin <gene.albin at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Gents,
>>> Thanks all for the suggestions. Specific responses below
>>>
>>> Rmkml - I made your recommended change to the suricata.yaml file (-
>>> profile: low) and there was no change. Watching top the spike appeard to
>>> peak at 3.7GB then Suricata exited.
>>>
>>> Dave - I have to admit that I'm not versed in C so I can't build the
>>> program you're describing. Do you know where I could find a pre-built one?
>>> I agree that upgrading to a 64-bit version would be the best choice, however
>>> I'm up against a very short timeline here and won't have time to upgrade the
>>> OS the reinstall Suricata and the rest of the tools that I need.
>>>
>>> Peter - Here are the results from both ulimit -aH and ulimit -a:
>>>
>>> [gene at suri2 ~]$ ulimit -aH
>>> core file size (blocks, -c) unlimited
>>> data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
>>> scheduling priority (-e) 0
>>> file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
>>> pending signals (-i) 278528
>>> max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 32
>>> max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited
>>> open files (-n) 1024
>>> pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8
>>> POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200
>>> real-time priority (-r) 0
>>> stack size (kbytes, -s) unlimited
>>> cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
>>> max user processes (-u) 278528
>>> virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
>>> file locks (-x) unlimited
>>>
>>> [gene at suri2 ~]$ ulimit -a
>>> core file size (blocks, -c) 0
>>> data seg size (kbytes, -d) unlimited
>>> scheduling priority (-e) 0
>>> file size (blocks, -f) unlimited
>>> pending signals (-i) 278528
>>> max locked memory (kbytes, -l) 32
>>> max memory size (kbytes, -m) unlimited
>>> open files (-n) 1024
>>> pipe size (512 bytes, -p) 8
>>> POSIX message queues (bytes, -q) 819200
>>> real-time priority (-r) 0
>>> stack size (kbytes, -s) 10240
>>> cpu time (seconds, -t) unlimited
>>> max user processes (-u) 278528
>>> virtual memory (kbytes, -v) unlimited
>>> file locks (-x) unlimited
>>>
>>> I'm not exactly sure what I'm looking at here, but it looks like my max
>>> memory size is unlimited. Am I reading this correctly?
>>> I've also looked over your screen capture from your Ubuntu 32-bit VM and
>>> can't figure out why I'm crashing. What version of Suricata are you running
>>> on that 32-bit Ubuntu VM? 1.1b2?
>>>
>>> Gene
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 7:14 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>> On 07/28/2011 02:54 PM, Dave Remien wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you're up for it, about 15 lines of C code will give you a tiny
>>>> program to test how much memory you can get for a single process - basically
>>>> just malloc in a loop until you can't anymore. Sounds like your environment
>>>> may actually be limited to 2GB of process size; normal for Linux is 3GB (all
>>>> in the 32 bit world). Or you could lobby for a 64 bit copy
>>>> of Centos; that'll eliminate the cap (for this purpose).
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Gene Albin <gene.albin at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I just created a ticket with the details. To answer the questions
>>>>> here, I'm running the 1.1b2 build from the tarball. Not using git. The
>>>>> machine is running the 32 bit version of CentOS5.6, but we just applied the
>>>>> kernel-PAE packages today to allow it to utilize more than 4GB of ram. Is
>>>>> this what you are talking about, Dave? Lastly I included the suricata.yaml
>>>>> file as well as the output from free -m and my collectl memory statistics
>>>>> during the fatal run.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for helping out with this. I thought that bumping the ram up to
>>>>> 16GB would fix it, but it appears not. Maybe I'll start slicing off some
>>>>> rules and see where the threshold lies...
>>>>>
>>>>> Gene
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 7:44 PM, Dave Remien <dave.remien at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Will Metcalf <
>>>>>> william.metcalf at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can you create a redmine ticket and attach a scrubbed version of your
>>>>>>> suricata.yaml? Along with output of free -m prior to starting suri?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you running a 32 bit kernel with a 2GB/2GB memory split, by any
>>>>>> chance??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dave
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Gene Albin <gene.albin at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> > Ok, I'm probably doing something wrong here, but every time I try
>>>>>>> to load a
>>>>>>> > combined rule file with all of the VRT and ET rules enabled (~30K
>>>>>>> rules) it
>>>>>>> > fails following stage 3:
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:14:09 - (detect.c:631) <Info>
>>>>>>> (SigLoadSignatures) --
>>>>>>> > 102 rule files processed. 30183 rules succesfully loaded, 164 rules
>>>>>>> failed
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:14:47 - (detect.c:2161) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage1) -- 30701 signatures processed. 1800 are
>>>>>>> IP-only
>>>>>>> > rules, 20152 are inspecting packet payload, 11088 inspect
>>>>>>> application layer,
>>>>>>> > 0 are decoder event only
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:14:47 - (detect.c:2164) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage1) -- building signature grouping structure,
>>>>>>> stage 1:
>>>>>>> > adding signatures to signature source addresses... complete
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:14:48 - (detect.c:2806) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage2) -- building signature grouping structure,
>>>>>>> stage 2:
>>>>>>> > building source address list... complete
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:16:40 - (detect.c:3363) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage3) -- MPM memory 1801173581 (dynamic
>>>>>>> 1801173581, ctxs
>>>>>>> > 0, avg per ctx 0)
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:16:40 - (detect.c:3365) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage3) -- max sig id 30701, array size 3838
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:16:40 - (detect.c:3376) <Info>
>>>>>>> > (SigAddressPrepareStage3) -- building signature grouping structure,
>>>>>>> stage 3:
>>>>>>> > building destination address lists... complete
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:16:43 - (detect-engine-siggroup.c:1583)
>>>>>>> <Error>
>>>>>>> > (SigGroupHeadBuildHeadArray) -- [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_MEM_ALLOC(1)] -
>>>>>>> SCMalloc
>>>>>>> > failed: Cannot allocate memory, while trying to allocate 558852
>>>>>>> bytes
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > [7069] 27/7/2011 -- 14:16:43 - (detect-engine-siggroup.c:1583)
>>>>>>> <Error>
>>>>>>> > (SigGroupHeadBuildHeadArray) -- [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_FATAL(169)] - Out
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> > memory. The engine cannot be initialized. Exiting...
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > I have done this while watching the memory useage in top (set to
>>>>>>> refresh
>>>>>>> > every .2 seconds). Initially when this happened I only had 4GB
>>>>>>> allocated to
>>>>>>> > the VM. Useage never gets beyond 2GB so that left almost 2GB
>>>>>>> available. I
>>>>>>> > decided to bump the VM up to 8GB but the problem didn't go away.
>>>>>>> It still
>>>>>>> > exits when the memory useage gets to around 2GB.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Everything works fine when I load a reduced ruleset, i.e. just VRT
>>>>>>> or just
>>>>>>> > ET, but for my tests I want to load both. Before I go back to the
>>>>>>> VM
>>>>>>> > administrator and ask for 16 GB (and wait several days for the
>>>>>>> allocation) I
>>>>>>> > was wondering if there might be a config setting that is limiting
>>>>>>> the size
>>>>>>> > of memory allocated to the rules.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Running 1.1b2 on CentOS 5.6 - 4core VMWare ESXi.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Any suggestions are welcome.
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > Gene
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > --
>>>>>>> > Gene Albin
>>>>>>> > gene.albin at gmail.com
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> > Oisf-users mailing list
>>>>>>> > Oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
>>>>>>> > http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Oisf-users mailing list
>>>>>>> Oisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> "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)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gene Albin
>>>>> gene.albin at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> "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)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Oisf-users mailing listOisf-users at openinfosecfoundation.orghttp://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/oisf-users
>>>>
>>>> In that respect.... What is your output of
>>>> ulimit -aH
>>>> and
>>>> ulimit -a
>>>> for the user that you run Suricata with?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Peter Manev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Gene Albin
>>> gene.albin at gmail.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Gene,
>> I am using Suricata version 1.1beta2 (rev df3ca32).
>> What happens if you try to run Suricata as root?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> --
>> Peter Manev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Gene Albin
> gene.albin at gmail.com
>
>
Sure,
I did send mine to you.
I tried with yours and Suricata is running aswell (I only modified the rules
directory)
Thanks
--
Peter Manev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20110730/3c0f2835/attachment-0002.html>
More information about the Oisf-users
mailing list