[Oisf-users] Suricata 4.0.3 with Napatech problems

[Steve Castellarin]

I'll give those a try now and let you know what happens.  In an earlier
email I noted something and wanted to get your take on it...

"I've noticed one thing that's strange.  In my YAML file I have the
"autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets".  Yet everytime I run Suricata I
see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active
packets".  When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML
file then that message disappears.  Any idea on what that is all about?"

On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Steve Castellarin
> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Peter,
> >
> > I reviewed my compile of Suricata 4.0.3 I noticed that I was using
> Hyperscan
> > version 4.7, as opposed to version 4.2 noted in the Suricata
> documentation
> > (http://suricata.readthedocs.io/en/latest/performance/hyperscan.html).
> > After recompiling with 4.2 I was able to get Suricata 4.0.3 to run for 42
> > minutes before it started dropping packets uncontrollably.
> >
>
> If that made a change in behavior - can you try mpm-algo; ac-ks and
> spm-algo: bm in the suricata.yaml?
>
> > I then made a change to /proc/sys/vm/max_map_count based on a note in
> > Napatech's documentation: "Especially for large host buffer
> configurations
> > it is necessary to adjust the kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"
> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count).  The kernel sysctl "vm.max_map_count"
> > (/proc/sys/vm/max_map_count) should be adjusted to (at least) the total
> > configured host buffer memory in MB multiplied by four.
> > Example for total host buffer size 128GB (131072MB): 131072*4 = 524288.
> > Hence the minimum value for "vm.max_map_count" is 524288."
> >
> > In my case I'm using 17 host buffers at 2048MB per ((17 * 2048) * 4),
> which
> > would be 139264.  My vm.max_map_count previously was 65530 (I guess
> default
> > for Ubuntu 14.04).  After changing that and re-running Suricata 4.0.3 it
> ran
> > for 45 minutes before the buffer/CPU issue came back.
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:49 AM, Steve Castellarin
> > <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> I just realized I responded directly to you instead of the mailing list
> -
> >> so here's my response, updated.
> >>
> >> I made a change to my YAML file for 4.0.3, dropping the
> >> detect-thread-ratio from 1.5 to 1 and on Friday was able to run Suricata
> >> 4.0.3 for five hours before the issue occurred.  This run did handle
> >> sustained network traffic of 1.2 through 1.7gbps.  So that is a step in
> the
> >> positive direction.  I'm going to have a hard time running 4.0.3 without
> >> rules, as this unfortunately is our only Suricata instance running our
> rule
> >> set.
> >>
> >> I've noticed one thing that's strange.  In my YAML file I have the
> >> "autofp-scheduler" set to "active-packets".  Yet everytime I run
> Suricata I
> >> see this noted in suricata.log "using flow hash instead of active
> packets".
> >> When I comment out the "autofp-scheduler" setting in the YAML file then
> that
> >> message disappears.  Any idea on what that is all about?
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 3:49 PM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 18 Jan 2018, at 19:21, Steve Castellarin <
> steve.castellarin at gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> And also, the bandwidth utilization was just over 800Mbps.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Can you try the same run but this time - load no rules. I would like to
> >>> see if it would make difference or not in the same amount of time.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 1:16 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hey Peter,
> >>>>
> >>>> Those changes didn't help.  Around 23+ minutes into the run one worker
> >>>> CPU (#30) stayed at 100% while buffer NT11 dropped packets and would
> not
> >>>> recover.  I'm attaching a zip file that has the stats.log for that
> run, the
> >>>> suricata.log file as well as the information seen at the command line
> after
> >>>> issuing "/usr/bin/suricata -vvv -c /etc/suricata/suricata.yaml
> --napatech
> >>>> --runmode workers -D".
> >>>>
> >>>> Steve
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:30 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We never see above 2Gbps.  When the issue occurred a little bit ago I
> >>>>> was running the Napatech "monitoring" tool and it was saying we were
> between
> >>>>> 650-900Mbps.  I'll note the bandwidth utilization when the next issue
> >>>>> occurs.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:28 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> > When you mean the "size of the traffic", are you asking what the
> >>>>>> > bandwidth
> >>>>>> > utilization is at the time the issue begins?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sorry - i mean the traffic you sniff - 1/5/10...Gbps ?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > I will set things up and send you any/all output after the issue
> >>>>>> > starts.
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Peter Manev <
> petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 4:43 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> > Hey Peter,
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > I tried as you asked.  Less than 15 minutes after I restarted
> >>>>>> >> > Suricata I
> >>>>>> >> > saw
> >>>>>> >> > my first CPU hitting 100% and one host buffer dropping all
> >>>>>> >> > packets.
> >>>>>> >> > Shortly
> >>>>>> >> > after that the second CPU hit 100% and a second host buffer
> began
> >>>>>> >> > dropping
> >>>>>> >> > all packets.  I'm attaching the stats.log where you'll see at
> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:11
> >>>>>> >> > the
> >>>>>> >> > first host buffer (nt1.drop) starts to register dropped
> packets,
> >>>>>> >> > then at
> >>>>>> >> > 10:31:51 you'll see host buffer nt6.drop begin to register
> >>>>>> >> > dropped
> >>>>>> >> > packets.
> >>>>>> >> > At that point I issued the kill.
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> What is the size of the traffic?
> >>>>>> >> Can you also try
> >>>>>> >> detect:
> >>>>>> >>   - profile: high
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> (as opposed to "custom")
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> Also if can run it in verbose mode (-vvv)   and send me that
> >>>>>> >> compete
> >>>>>> >> output after you start having the issues.
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> Thanks
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> > Steve
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> > On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 10:05 AM, Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> > wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> > Hey Pete,
> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> > Here's the YAML file from the last time I attempted to run
> >>>>>> >> >> > 4.0.3 -
> >>>>>> >> >> > with
> >>>>>> >> >> > the
> >>>>>> >> >> > network information removed.  Let me know if you need
> anything
> >>>>>> >> >> > else
> >>>>>> >> >> > from
> >>>>>> >> >> > our
> >>>>>> >> >> > configuration.  I'll also go to the redmine site to open a
> bug
> >>>>>> >> >> > report.
> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> > Steve
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> Hi Steve,
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> Can you try without -
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >>   midstream: true
> >>>>>> >> >>   asyn-oneside:true
> >>>>>> >> >> so
> >>>>>> >> >>   #midstream: true
> >>>>>> >> >>   #asyn-oneside:true
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> and lower the "prealloc-session: 1000000" to 100 000 for
> example
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> Thank you.
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> > On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:36 AM, Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> >> > wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 4:12 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Hey Peter, I didn't know if you had a chance to look at
> the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > stats
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > log
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > and
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > configuration file I sent.  So far, running 3.1.1 with
> the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > updated
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > Napatech
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > drivers my system is running without any issues.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> The toughest part of the troubleshooting is that i dont
> have
> >>>>>> >> >> >> the set
> >>>>>> >> >> >> up to reproduce this.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> I didn't see anything that could lead me to definitive
> >>>>>> >> >> >> conclusion
> >>>>>> >> >> >> from
> >>>>>> >> >> >> the stats log.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> Can you please open a bug report on our redmine with the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> details
> >>>>>> >> >> >> form
> >>>>>> >> >> >> this mialthread?
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> Would it be possible to share the suricata.yaml (privately
> if
> >>>>>> >> >> >> you
> >>>>>> >> >> >> would like works too; remove all networks)?
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> Thank you
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> > <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> Here is the zipped stats.log.  I restarted the Napatech
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> drivers
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> before
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> running Suricata 4.0.3 to clear out any previous drop
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> counters,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> etc.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> The first time I saw a packet drop was at the 12:20:51
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark, and
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> you'll
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see "nt12.drop" increment.  During this time one of the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPUs
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> acting
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> as
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> a
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "worker" was at 100%.  But these drops recovered at the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:20:58
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> mark,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> where
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt12.drop" stays constant at 13803.  The big issue
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> triggered at
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:05 mark in the file - where one worker CPU was
> stuck
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> followed
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> by packet drops in host buffer "nt3.drop".  Then came a
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> second
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> CPU
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> at
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 100%
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> (another "worker" CPU) and packet drops in buffer
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> "nt2.drop" at
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> 12:27:33.  I
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> finally killed Suricata just before 12:27:54, where you
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> see all
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> host
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> buffers
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> beginning to drop packets.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> I'm also including the output from the "suricata
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> --dump-config"
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> command.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 8:02 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Peter, yes that is correct.  I worked for almost a
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > couple
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > weeks
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > with
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > Napatech support and they believed the Napatech setup
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > (ntservice.ini
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > and
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > custom NTPL script) are working as they should.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Ok.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> One major difference between Suricata 3.x and 4.0.x in
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> terms of
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Napatech is that they did update the code, some fixes
> and
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> updated
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> counters.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> There were a bunch of upgrades in Suricata too.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Is it possible to send over a stats.log - when the
> issue
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> starts
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> occuring?
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 9:52 AM, Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> > wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On 11 Jan 2018, at 07:19, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> After my last email yesterday I decided to go back
> to
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> our
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> install of
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Suricata, with
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the upgraded Napatech version.  Since then I've seen
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> no
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> packets
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> dropped
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> with sustained bandwidth of between 1 and 1.7Gbps.
> So
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> I'm
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> not
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> sure
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> what is
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> going on with my configuration/setup of Suricata
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> So the only thing that you changed is the upgrade of
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> the
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> Napatech
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> drivers
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> ?
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> The Suricata config stayed the same -  you just
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> upgraded to
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 4.0.3
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (from
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> 3.1.1) and the observed effect was - after a while
> all
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> (or
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> most)
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> cpus
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> get
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> pegged at 100% - is that correct ?
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 4:46 PM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Hey Peter, no there is no error messages.
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Jan 10, 2018 4:37 PM, "Peter Manev"
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <petermanev at gmail.com>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:29 AM, Steve Castellarin
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> > Hey Peter,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Are there any errors msgs in suricata.log when that
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> happens
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> ?
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Thank you
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> --
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Regards,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>> Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> >
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> --
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Regards,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>> Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> >> --
> >>>>>> >> >> >> Regards,
> >>>>>> >> >> >> Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >>
> >>>>>> >> >> --
> >>>>>> >> >> Regards,
> >>>>>> >> >> Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >> >
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >> --
> >>>>>> >> Regards,
> >>>>>> >> Peter Manev
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>> Peter Manev
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Peter Manev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20180124/b7349f43/attachment-0002.html>