• Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login
Netgate Discussion Forum
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Search
  • Register
  • Login

Suricata - increase in CPU use after upgrade to v6

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IDS/IPS
22 Posts 4 Posters 3.5k Views 7 Watching
Loading More Posts
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • D Offline
    digdug3 @bmeeks
    last edited by Nov 25, 2021, 7:14 AM

    @bmeeks You are right (of course!), I misread... Hope they find a solution soon.

    B 1 Reply Last reply Nov 25, 2021, 2:02 PM Reply Quote 0
    • B Offline
      bmeeks @digdug3
      last edited by Nov 25, 2021, 2:02 PM

      @digdug3 said in Suricata - increase in CPU use after upgrade to v6:

      @bmeeks You are right (of course!), I misread... Hope they find a solution soon.

      Hopefully they will.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • N Offline
        NollipfSense @darcey
        last edited by Nov 26, 2021, 1:31 AM

        @darcey said in Suricata - increase in CPU use after upgrade to v6:

        pfSense is virtualised, in Proxmox, with 2 cores i7-3770S and 4GB RAM.

        I would think the 4GB RAM for host and guest could be your problem unless that's allotted for guest only and even then, how many rules you have enabled could play significantly.

        pfSense+ 23.09 Lenovo Thinkcentre M93P SFF Quadcore i7 dual Raid-ZFS 128GB-SSD 32GB-RAM PCI-Intel i350-t4 NIC, -Intel QAT 8950.
        pfSense+ 23.09 VM-Proxmox, Dell Precision Xeon-W2155 Nvme 500GB-ZFS 128GB-RAM PCIe-Intel i350-t4, Intel QAT-8950, P-cloud.

        D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 26, 2021, 9:09 AM Reply Quote 0
        • D Offline
          darcey @NollipfSense
          last edited by Nov 26, 2021, 9:09 AM

          @nollipfsense Each suricata process uses around 700MB. The PVE host has an i7-3770S and 32GB RAM and serves me well. Of that, the pfsense guest is allocated 4GB and 2 cpus and even that level of resource allocation is somewhat under utilised. But cpu demand changes considerably with suricata 6. I'm sticking with suricata 5 for the time being.

          D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 26, 2021, 3:18 PM Reply Quote 1
          • D Offline
            digdug3 @darcey
            last edited by Nov 26, 2021, 3:18 PM

            @darcey @NollipfSense It's a KVM issue with usleep in suricata 6.x, but also some low level bare metal machines have it.

            D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 28, 2021, 6:50 PM Reply Quote 0
            • D Offline
              darcey @digdug3
              last edited by Nov 28, 2021, 6:50 PM

              @digdug3 said in Suricata - increase in CPU use after upgrade to v6:

              It's a KVM issue with usleep in suricata 6.x, but also some low level bare metal machines have it.

              Yes, I'm regularly revisiting that thread. I wonder what, if any, options might mitigate this issue in the meantime. kvm module options were hinted at but they seem limited and would affect all VMs. Then there are qemu options, but I wouldn't know where to start. I'm currently running pfsense in a standard proxmox i440fx vm with host cpu, all network interfaces based on linux bridges, and no passthrough devices. Nothing fancy.

              D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 29, 2021, 6:48 AM Reply Quote 0
              • D Offline
                digdug3 @darcey
                last edited by Nov 29, 2021, 6:48 AM

                @darcey Could you try to disable "Enable HTTP log" and restart Suricata? It looks like the load is cut down by +50%

                D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 29, 2021, 9:35 AM Reply Quote 0
                • D Offline
                  darcey @digdug3
                  last edited by darcey Nov 29, 2021, 9:39 AM Nov 29, 2021, 9:35 AM

                  @digdug3 said:

                  Could you try to disable "Enable HTTP log" and restart Suricata? It looks like the load is cut down by +50%

                  Thanks @digdug3. I only have EVE logging enabled and, of the two interfaces monitored by suricata, only one is logging traffic. Should I have seen a noticable difference in the CPU utilisation between the two suricata processes? I don't recall that being the case. I'm back on version 5 for now so cannot test it right now. I will look more closely at the impact of logging when I next attempt the upgrade to v6. Do you have more info on that recommendation?
                  Something that seem to crop up in the discussion of this was the difference in cpu use reported in the guest vs the host. I don't recall seeing a significant difference in my case.

                  D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 29, 2021, 12:44 PM Reply Quote 0
                  • D Offline
                    digdug3 @darcey
                    last edited by Nov 29, 2021, 12:44 PM

                    @darcey "Enable HTTP log" is enabled by default. I too have EVE logging on four interfaces and after disabling the "HTTP log" I saw a change in load from 5+ to a load between 2.26 and 2.70.
                    Even with EVE logging still enabled. I use pfSense on Proxmox, so your and my system are almost equal.

                    Also CPU usage was sometimes 100% and now between 20% and 50% (in pfSense itself, not in Proxmox, there the change from Suricata 5.x at 15% to Suricata 6.x at 50% is still very visible)

                    Just wanted to make sure it's not something else I changed.

                    D 1 Reply Last reply Nov 29, 2021, 2:34 PM Reply Quote 0
                    • D Offline
                      darcey @digdug3
                      last edited by darcey Nov 29, 2021, 2:36 PM Nov 29, 2021, 2:34 PM

                      @digdug3 I do have the standalone http log option disabled. I have basic logging (for http and several other ptotcols) enabled for eve output on one interface.
                      If I disable/reduce logging on an interface, I'd expect to see a load reduction in proportion to the volume of traffic on the interface, be it suricata 5 or 6. However the interface concerned is low traffic and the proportion of http is fairly low. I'm going to play around with it next time though. Thanks.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • D darcey referenced this topic on Feb 26, 2023, 10:17 AM
                      • D darcey referenced this topic on Feb 26, 2023, 10:20 AM
                      • B bmeeks referenced this topic on Feb 26, 2023, 3:51 PM
                      • B bmeeks referenced this topic on Feb 26, 2023, 4:01 PM
                      • B bmeeks referenced this topic on Feb 26, 2023, 4:13 PM
                      22 out of 22
                      • First post
                        22/22
                        Last post
                      Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.
                        This community forum collects and processes your personal information.
                        consent.not_received