[Oisf-users] Suricata 4.0.3 with Napatech problems

[Steve Castellarin]

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:

<Error> - [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_FATAL(171)] - Engine unable to disable detect
thread - "W#[THREAD]-[HB#]".  Killing engine
<Error> - [ERRCODE: SC_ERR_NAPATECH_INIT_FAILED(219)] - NT_InfoRead()
failed: NTAPI is terminating

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:

<Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level :   25%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level :   51%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level :   75%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Host Buffer Fill Level :  100%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level:   26%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level:   53%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level:   80%
<Info> - HB# - Increasing Adapter SDRAM Fill Level:  100%


Could this point to an issue with the Napatech code in Suricata - and how
it pulls/polls/etc data from the Napatech?



On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 11:08 AM, Steve Castellarin <
steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 9:12 AM, Peter Manev <petermanev at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 2:44 PM, Steve Castellarin
>> <steve.castellarin at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 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?"
>> >
>>
>> This is the default setting -
>> https://redmine.openinfosecfoundation.org/projects/suricata/
>> repository/revisions/master/entry/suricata.yaml.in#L1024
>> with regards to autofp - but in your case you are using "--napatech
>> --runmode workers" so it should be unrelated.
>>
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Peter Manev
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openinfosecfoundation.org/pipermail/oisf-users/attachments/20180124/118ab3f7/attachment-0002.html>