From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 9 19:57:30 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25A6216A4CE; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:57:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from cell.sick.ru (cell.sick.ru [217.72.144.68]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D4043D1D; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 19:57:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: from cell.sick.ru (glebius@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i89JvPH4012316 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:57:26 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) Received: (from glebius@localhost) by cell.sick.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i89JvPeZ012315; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:57:25 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from glebius@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: cell.sick.ru: glebius set sender to glebius@freebsd.org using -f Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 23:57:25 +0400 From: Gleb Smirnoff To: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" Message-ID: <20040909195725.GC12168@cell.sick.ru> References: <20040905121111.GA78276@cell.sick.ru> <4140834C.3000306@freebsd.org> <20040909171018.GA11540@cell.sick.ru> <414093DE.A6DC6E67@freebsd.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6i cc: Andre Oppermann cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [TEST/REVIEW] Netflow implementation X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 19:57:30 -0000 On Thu, Sep 09, 2004 at 06:02:35PM +0000, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: B> What I'd like to ask but did not because I didn't really have a B> chance to view more than documentation is: B> - what is the memory impact of this node ? It uses a static cache (default size 65k entries). One entry takes 56 bytes, if I don't mistake. B> - can it cope with 50++ Mbit/s UDP worms scanning large subnets ? I haven't tried 50++ Mbit/s of worms, but it works on 100Mbit/s of live traffic, which is full of worms. The answer is: it depends on how large is your CPU and how quick are your worms. Try it and tell me how it goes. :) -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE