[Snort-users] Portscan2 woes

Erek Adams erek at ...950...
Fri May 2 15:17:03 EDT 2003


On Fri, 2 May 2003, Matt Kettler wrote:

[...snip...]

> Disabling it fixed the packet drop rate problem, and also made snort use
> significantly less memory. I guess it's just not cut out for lower-end
> hardware.

Just a FYI (which I'm sure Matt knows!  ;-):  Snort 2.0 takes up _quite_ a
bit more memory than 1.9.x.

If you're running on memory starved hardware (64 or less MB) then you'll
have issues trying to run Snort.

If you are on a setup like that, then try:

  config detection: search-method lowmem

It should cut your mem usage back to the 1.9.x days.

Cheers!

-----
Erek Adams

   "When things get weird, the weird turn pro."   H.S. Thompson




More information about the Snort-users mailing list