Ethical Hacking Learn to find vulnerabilities before the bad guys do! Gain real world hands on hacking experience in our state of the art hacking lab. Course designed and taught by expert instructors with years of penetration testing experience. 12 student maximum in every class. Certification attempt included in every package. | Computer Forensics Training at InfoSec Institute Gain the in-demand skills of a certified computer examiner, learn to recover trace data left behind by fraud, theft, and cybercrime perpetrators. Discover the source of computer crime and abuse at your organization so that it never happens again. All of our class sizes are guaranteed to be 12 students or less to facilitate one-on-one interaction with one of our expert instructors. |

| Subject: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort performance concerns |
|---|---|
| Date: | Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:40:57 -0400 |
First place i'd look is disabling rules you don't need. Not sure ifyou've done
that already, but many people are running with much largerrulesets than what
they need. I was seeing the same thing you were,for example, certain sensors
are handling near 100Mbps with minimaldrops, while others are dropping packets
at > 3Mbps.
After disabling some unnecessary rulesets the CPU utilization went waydown and
i haven't seen any issues since.
I've seen the highest performance hit with the web-client rules forsome reason.
So disabling try that first.
On 9/30/05, Larry Wichman <larrywichman@yahoo.com> wrote:>>> I enabled
Performance Monitor on my sensors and I have some concerns after> looking at
some of the performance stats. First, I have three sensors, two> of which
average 96mb/sec of traffic and the dropped packets percentage> average is
about 10% (proc and memory utilization are high, as expected). I> have a third
sensor that sees an average of about 5mb/sec and has the same> amount of
dropped packets, memory and proc utilization are minimal. I have> implemented
all the suggested optimizations (I think), patched Libpcap,> etc….I can
understand that there would be some dropped packets when the> traffic is at a
high, continuous load, but the third sensor with the same> amount of dropped
packets with only a fraction of the traffic concerns me.> I am thinking about
upgrading the hardware (faster proc, bus speeds, etc…),> but I might be wasting
money if the stats are the same. Does anyone have> any input as to what is
causing the dropped packets?>> Also, my boss told me to start evaluating
commercial products. My first> choice would be Sourcfire, I really do like
working with Snort, but I need> whatever product I choose to be able to handle
the amount of traffic that we> have. I would greatly appreciate any input on
this. Cheers.>>>>
LarryÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÓ†+ó^µéšŠX¬²š'²ŠÞu¼ÿ>Œ¬Ü†+^rÛ«y¬¢êÜx'§µêÿ·žr‰íz{ÿvŒ'–†?³÷b±Ë¬²*'³ö§vj+{øm¶ŸÿþÊ%ºØ¨žÏç{¢¸ýÊ&þ&æj·!þÙ©—ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿJz+·û¬z»&j)bž
b²Ô§¢»ÿºÇ«³ùb²Ûÿ²‹«qçè®ÿ?ëF¢Ú-†+D»hr§?ë¬zº)¶*'²ŠîžË›±Êâmïá¶ÚlÿÿåŠËlþÊ.ÇŸ¢¸þwþX¬¶ÏåŠËb?ú?²z+·û¬z»žŠíþë®Éb²Ö«r¯{øm¶Ÿÿÿ
0þ¨r¶°•êÿr‰¿çb¯ûþ˜ißùb²žŠíþë
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort performance concerns, Joel Esler |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort performance concerns, Larry Wichman |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [Snort-users] Snort performance concerns, Joel Esler |
| Next by Thread: | RE: [Snort-users] Snort performance concerns, Jeff Dell |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |