[Snort-users] high packet loss - low throughput

Joel Esler jesler at ...1935...
Sun Jul 21 12:08:04 EDT 2013

If Snort sees traffic more than once, it will analyze it as many times as it sees it. 

The SSL preprocessing should discard an ignore a session after it determines the legitimate certificate exchange,
But like I said, it sounds like there is something else going on here. 

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 21, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Michal Purzynski <michal at ...16244...> wrote:

> On 7/21/13 2:03 PM, Joel Esler wrote:
>> Yes, performance that low seems incorrect. I don't think it's Snort with numbers that low. 
> Also, a question for the more experienced. I have a simple setup - load balancers in front of everything, doing L7 and terminating SSL. Snort gets a copy of all the traffic and that means it can see:
> 1. traffic from Internet to load balancers
> 2. traffic from LB to the backend servers
> 3. traffic from the backend to LB 
> 4. traffic from the LB to the Internet
> It's clear it can see the same traffic twice, sometimes enrypted sometimes decrypted (SSL preprocessor enabled, so the encrypted traffic is being ignored).
> Question: does it make sense to leave it like this or should I only direct the "internal" traffic to snort? You know, the one between the LB <-> backend?
>> Sent from my iPad
>> On Jul 21, 2013, at 6:16 AM, Michal Purzynski <michal at ...16244...> wrote:
>>> On 7/21/13 2:22 AM, Joel Esler wrote:
>>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 6:46 PM, Michal Purzynski <michal at ...16244...> wrote:
>>>>> The sourcefire company claims to achieve 1Gbit/sec per CPU core. I find 
>>>>> it actualy hard to believe as the "empty" snort used to do around 
>>>>> 250-300Mbit/sec per core here. Empty as in no rules at all.
>>>> Even more.  But we have a dedicated appliance specifically tuned with special drivers to run Snort very fast.  You are doing this, I assume on commodity hardware, on a stock OS, running many things (Security Onion)
>>> Not really, SO is so wonderful you can enable and disable functionality on demand, and so I've done. The box is running snort and netsniff-ng only, has around 20 processes of snort (24 execution threads with HT enabled).
>>> Still - 45Mbit/sec per instance with packet loss is disappointing. And 100 would be too.
>>> Also, I'm running Intel and pf_ring, can try a Myricom (and not pf_ring). I won't try anything more expensive like FPGA accelerated cards, since I find them too limited and having no real advantage over Myricom and a lot of downsides.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.snort.org/pipermail/snort-users/attachments/20130721/588e1140/attachment.html>

More information about the Snort-users mailing list