public inbox for development@lists.ipfire.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Peter Müller" <peter.mueller@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: suricata 6.0.0 / 6.0.1 - cpu load (idle) rising compared to 5.0.4
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 20:34:11 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <94c51ec3-1c00-d8d8-0c15-44e11e9ac264@ipfire.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <10a736f6-bb62-6b85-d424-b9f3d31831d5@ipfire.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3340 bytes --]

Hello *,

some feedback came from the community 
(https://community.ipfire.org/t/core-153-testing/4005/), where CPU load 
seems to behave fine as well.

Unless I overlooked something, this issue primarily seems to affect
- virtualised systems and
- machines running on a CPU with two cores or less.

Thanks, and best regards,
Peter Müller


> Hello Michael, hello Matthias, hello *,
> 
> just for the records: I cannot reproduce this issue on two machines 
> running Core Update 153 (testing) for a while now.
> 
> Both have an Intel N3150 CPU and are running on x86_64 (no 
> virtualisation), one of those is almost permanently under a significant 
> network load. To be honest, it's CPU load actually _decreased_ a bit 
> after installing Core Update 153, but I cannot pinpoint the reason for 
> this at the moment.
> 
>  From my point of view, there is no need to downgrade to Suricata 5.x 
> again. In terms of security, I dislike that idea as well, however, this 
> seems to affect certain scenarios quite bad...
> 
> Thanks, and best regards,
> Peter Müller
> 
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>>> On 12 Dec 2020, at 02:18, Kienker, Fred <fkienker(a)at4b.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Matthas:
>>>
>>> I worked through some of the examples of the settings described in the
>>> Suricata forum discussion. If my observations is correct, the issue
>>> centers around the flow manager. A change to it has made a big
>>> difference it the resource usage by this process. Its likely going to
>>> come down to live with the load created the v6 version or revert to v5
>>> and wait for them to get to the bottom of this. No combination of
>>> settings in the flow section of suricata.yaml ever seemed to reduce it
>>> and instead increased it.
>>
>> Good research.
>>
>>> I don't use low power systems for IPFire and dont have access to one
>>> but others with these systems may want to take a look at their
>>> performance numbers and report back as to whether they can live with the
>>> higher load.
>>
>> It is not directly low-power systems.
>>
>> I launched this on AWS today and the CPU load is immediately at 25%. 
>> It was mentioned on the linked thread that virtual systems are 
>> affected more.
>>
>> I would now rather lean towards reverting suricata 6 unless there is a 
>> hot fix available soon.
>>
>> Best,
>> -Michael
>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Fred
>>>
>>> Please note: Although we may sometimes respond to email, text and phone
>>> calls instantly at all hours of the day, our regular business hours are
>>> 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM ET, Monday thru Friday.
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Matthias Fischer <matthias.fischer(a)ipfire.org>
>>> Sent: Friday, December 11, 2020 6:34 PM
>>> To: Kienker, Fred; michael.tremer <michael.tremer(a)ipfire.org>;
>>> stefan.schantl <stefan.schantl(a)ipfire.org>
>>> Cc: development <development(a)lists.ipfire.org>
>>> Subject: Re: suricata 6.0.0 / 6.0.1 - cpu load (idle) rising compared to
>>> 5.0.4
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> looks as if there is something going on in the suricata forum regarding
>>> cpu load:
>>>
>>> => https://forum.suricata.io/t/cpu-usage-of-version-6-0-0/706
>>>
>>> I can't really interpret the numrous screenshots and ongoing
>>> discussions, but could it be that this is related to what I'm
>>> experiencing when upgrading from 5.0.x to 6.0.x?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-14 20:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <H000007e004e35e1.1607700049.mail.at4b.com@MHS>
2020-12-11 16:00 ` Matthias Fischer
2020-12-11 19:07   ` Matthias Fischer
2020-12-11 23:33     ` Matthias Fischer
2020-12-12  1:18       ` Kienker, Fred
2020-12-14 14:26         ` Michael Tremer
2020-12-14 15:58           ` Peter Müller
2020-12-14 18:22             ` Adolf Belka
2020-12-14 20:34             ` Peter Müller [this message]
2020-12-14 16:07           ` Kienker, Fred
2020-12-12  0:52   ` Kienker, Fred
     [not found] <276ec94c-01ff-9bce-16ce-234a2336c4c7@ipfire.org>
2020-12-10 19:36 ` Michael Tremer
2020-12-11 16:03   ` Matthias Fischer
2020-12-06 10:08 Matthias Fischer
2020-12-10 13:39 ` Michael Tremer
2020-12-10 17:46   ` Matthias Fischer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=94c51ec3-1c00-d8d8-0c15-44e11e9ac264@ipfire.org \
    --to=peter.mueller@ipfire.org \
    --cc=development@lists.ipfire.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox