Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 22:01:43 +0000 From: Peter Wood <peter@alastria.net> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Implementation of Sampling for BPF Message-ID: <47814FC7.6080106@alastria.net> In-Reply-To: <opt4i1vb0x17d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net> References: <4781337B.40104@alastria.net> <opt4i1vb0x17d6mn@nuclight.avtf.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Evening, > I don't think that modifying bpf.c is good solution, as userland is not > the only consumer of BPF, think, for example, about ng_bpf. Moreover, > what is the purpose of sampling, after all? BPF was never intended to be > reliable every-packet solution. Certainly other things do use BPF, however in my case I'm not using them, and in the 1 in X solution I have developed so far it can be turned on and off and if it's of huge concern could be put between defines and a kernel config option be required to include it. I'm not looking to transform BPF into a solution to reliably sample every packet, I am looking at attempting to define which packets it discards so that there is an equal chance of sampling something that happens, rather then an unknown/unpredictable chance. I wanted to stop the packet being sent to BPF as high up the kernel chain as possible as to save as much CPU time as possible. There's no point in capturing everything we can and then having the user land program selectively chuck stuff when it could be done before all the various copying/switching/etc. Additionally it would be nice to limit the number of packets that are processed through sampling, running some of our servers at 100% load is not ideal (see point 2 bellow). > If you are monitoring in userland, Snort > of course will not have enough time to process all of your data, so why > not simply put at least two machines in parallel, one for each mirrored > line? 1) This doesn't scale, in the next six to twelve months I'm going to be presented with a 10Gb uplink to our regional network. Now I know I'm going to have issues when that link reaches ~40% capacity anyway, but one thing at a time. 2) We don't have the machine room heat or power capacity spare to run more servers, and there are other projects that require capacity that are in the waiting list way ahead of mine. 3) Because of our constraints we are satisfied with sampled data, we don't need full streams, but we would like controlled sampled data. I'd love to buy a commercial hardware solution, unfortunately my budget is short by about $750k. So here I am with my favourite OS instead. God knows I've benefited from using FreeBSD, as has the institute I work for, at least if I do it properly I can say "guys, it's yours if you want it". So if anyone wouldn't mind having a quick look at my initial email that'd be great. P. -- Peter Wood <peter@alastria.net>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?47814FC7.6080106>