What is the biggest attack in GBPS you stopped
-
System Activity or "ps" will tell you total CPU time consumed. Just remember, a quad core can consume 4 CPU seconds per second.
Not always, you need to understand how the L2 cache works, ie its shared between cores on Intel, but AMD tend to have a cache amount per core, ie AMD would be less prone to cache collisions unlike Intel cpu's.
Cache misses counts as CPU time. If it takes an extra 250 cycles because of a cache miss, well, that's counting against you. CPU time is the amount of time a process has been scheduled. What it does during that time is irrelevant from the schedulers's standpoint.
System Activity or "ps" will tell you total CPU time consumed. Just remember, a quad core can consume 4 CPU seconds per second.
Yes
Yes & No
If no cache collisions occur then yes your "4 CPU seconds per second" would be right but when a cache collision occurs then its a matter of debate whether the cpu is giving you any cpu time useful to the task being asked of it by said software because a cache collision by definition is a failure of the cpu/core depending on where the cache collision occurs ie L1,2,3 which means no cpu processing useful to the task being asked of it as it backs out and resolves the cache collision.
To then make it a little more complicated or simpler depending on perspective, if the cache collision occurs on cache shared across all the cores then no you dont get your 4 cpu seconds per second as the CPU backs out and resolves the cache collision which holds up one or more other cores.
If the cache collision occurs on cache available only to a single core like L1 and some L2 (L2 on some chips is shared and on others its a small % of the total L2 but unique to each core), then you could consider it in your 4 cpu seconds per second statement but then there is still the matter of whether the CPU is giving you any "useful" processing time whilst it resolves the collision. Technically the time spent/clock cycles filling the cache having a collision and then resolving the collision is time wasted but it could still show as 100% core or CPU activity depending on the cache affected. So Yes when you see CPU activity at 100%, that would be correct but its not the whole picture as its hiding the cock ups of the CPU cache and the bus waits that are occuring.
Now even if we dont have any cache collisions, on a multi core cpu, time is then further spent wasted as the individual cores spend time waiting to access ram or the disk depending on bus architecture.
I've got software here which I have written which can run mulithreaded and multi cored, but its also capable of running on a single thread on a single core or x threads on a single core or x threads on x cores.
Guess which one runs the fastest?
The single threaded single core version.
Why is this?
Its because there is no time wasted handshaking between threads at the OS level and cores at the HW to access the ram and disk. Disk activity shows this up the most as disk/permanent storage is an order of magnitude slower to access even SSD's when compared to ram.
In some respects even though Arm chips are RISC ie dont have as many common tasks normally carried out by OS software functions which have made it into the cpu architecture unlike say Intels AES-NI to pick a relevant example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set
of where some common software functions have made it into the cpu architecture, they generally but not always tend to speed up the software but all of this ultimately depends on how the software is written and to a lessor extent the language and compiler used as optimising compilers like cache can work for you and against you as well depending on the chip used to run the software.This is why I suggested right back at the beginning to try a 1.x version of pfsense. Considering the new features and improvements to functionality made to OS's over time, not only can code be compared easily, it will be possible to workout by elimination and some observations where the problem lies. I suspect knowing how HW drivers used to be for printers especially HP printers in the Win3.1,W95,W98, NT3.5, NT4 days that the drivers have not been updated enough to keep pace with OS developments, hence why I agree with KOM and suspect its a NIC hook issue in the OS, but it will also be compounded by the multi core's seen in cpu's today which is why I also suggested for those running it virtualised like on ESXI, to restrict the core's available to 1.
Apologies if this making you suck eggs, but due to limited data ie not knowing you or your past I dont know how much you know or dont know, hence the explaination above. :)
-
Its not that I don't believe hardware is intercepted and modified for some people or that state level agencies don't hack and compromise target systems. Its just that unless there is some reason I doubt seriously they are doing it to you.
Are you someone worth targeting?
-
Its not that I don't believe hardware is intercepted and modified for some people or that state level agencies don't hack and compromise target systems. Its just that unless there is some reason I doubt seriously they are doing it to you.
Are you someone worth targeting?
I dont think so, but thats a matter of opinion even when people have a thirst for knowledge which reminds me of the saying curiosity killed the cat. The saying is like a warning to not be educated.
Here in the UK whilst there is a saying, no knowledge of the law is no defence from the law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat considering we are born into a world where we are not even taught the laws of the land some of which go back in time before many of us were born like this http://www.channel4.com/news/1946-agreement-nsa-read-your-email-prism-data and the state acts in a duplicious secretative manner like this http://www.channel4.com/news/nsa-edward-snowden-america-britain-tony-blair how can the state be trusted on so many matters to act in any of our [edit - or all of our] best interests?
I'll come back and add more but got to sort something out.
Edit.
In light of the previous comments about thread drift and the fact the your question "Are you someone worth targeting?" has many parallels with religion, maths, biology, physics, quantum physics, philosophy, law both UK, international and foreign country laws, perhaps best summed up as the meaning of life, it would perhaps best be continued in off topic?
-
Thank you :D
SO I will test the VM with only 1 core available and see how it fares.
1st picture with 1 CPU idle.
2nd is under D0S.Some notes to this. With only one, it did A LOT better lasting 35 seconds before it lost connection to the outside world compared to 5 seconds using 8 CORES.
It did crash the Webgui as well and lost all contact to the system activity page showing no connection in the browser.
-
MBUF change to "1.000.000"
Testing of 2 CORES on the way.
Fares a lot better than 1 core
-
A little breakthrough in regards to responsiveness!
http://youtu.be/bzFHBOshmlY
Changed the KERN.IPC.NMBUF setting to "65536". Dont know what 10.1 has as std. setting but it made the damn thing much more responsive.
Going 4 CORE testing….
-
4 Cores were not the improvement I had been hoping for.
It actually did worse then the 2 core test.
Upping to 8 cores.
-
8 cores
http://youtu.be/-xTtzLEQx08
Not as good as hoped but not running 100% CPU like all the others. It seems that the response on the WAN graph are related to the PING on WAN.
It seems that the 2 CORE setup is the one that performs best in beginning until around 35 seconds into the attack. Then crash. 4 and 8 cores keep the GUI online.
-
Testing of 2 CORES on the way.
Fares a lot better than 1 coreIt seems that the 2 CORE setup is the one that performs best in beginning until around 35 seconds into the attack. Then crash. 4 and 8 cores keep the GUI online.
Hmmm, so more cores provide more CPU performance to use for other purposes beyond handling the packets filtering (like, running the webserver) . Amazing discovery.
-
Thanks man.
I really dig your positive attitude.
Should more cores not equal better performanve instaed than JUST keeping the webserver online?
The SYN script shouldnt even TOUCH the GUI and make it unresponsive….
What about this on a ALIX board or whatever low performanve ATOM?
Go get laid and come back with a more positive attitude. ;)
On another note, then pls. tell me HOW you would like me to test the systems?
WHAT do you recommend doing to get to the bottom of this other than handing over the script causing it?
Pls. use a bullet list to point out the obvious....
-
Positive attitude to what? More junky YT videos? Sigh. The last 3 pages are filled with clueless guesses, YT junk, OT noise and spiced with a bit of conspiracy idiocy, so pardon me for not following this amazingly "useful" thread in detail. Did someone here at least provide the traffic captures to the guys who know what they are doing?
What about this on a ALIX board or whatever low performanve ATOM?
Why the fsck would I or anyone else waste my time with testing a DoS on Alix? Yeah it does not handle it. SIGDOUBLEDUH!
-
Yes….I did a packetcapture free to DL for everyone.
-
doc may be a bit blunt but you cannot be surprised by the attitudes in this thread.
You (Supermule) joined the thread and instantly declared pfSense a sub-par OS, and shared no supporting facts or theories. That was pure trolling. Now, I see it was perhaps inadvertent, but damn did you make a bad first impression.
My ignorant and honest opinion is that a good admin does not constantly focus on the ways his tools fail him, he figures out how to achieve his goal through other ways. Er… You seem hell-bent on proving pfSense sucks, how about employing some positive attitude and figure out the ways it does not suck.
-
I have spent the last 2-3 mths together with lowprofile to search for something that can improve it.
We have sent numerous mails to the dev's and not much response.
We wanted to have the dev's setup a test rig so they could see for themselves how it fares and work together somehow on creating a solution for this or maybe point out what specific issues the base OS has handling the packets.
Not much has come back….if nothing at all.
Lowprofile is looking at other products to handle his scenario since he is pretty dissappointed in the whole "package" and especilly in the lack of response on a matter this important.
-
Should more cores not equal better performanve instaed than JUST keeping the webserver online?
The OS is multi tasking and as such different services/programs/daemons will always be running so if you had just the core OS plus 7 services/programs/daemons running a single thread each, they would be distributed across all 8 cores and thus load shared within the constraints of the CPU hw.
You can think of a thread in a program as an instance of part of the main program, ie you might load a program with a menu that opens other windows. The menu may let you open the same menu option and child window multiple times. In this instance you will probably have a multithreaded app/program running which means each new instance of the child window will likely to be running on its own thread and the OS will distribute those threads across the available cores as well. Its a type of recursion in some respects.
In a modern OS theres lots running in the background and they will have different requirements like what priority they should run at, some will take up the time slice of a cpu more frequently than others due to the nature of the program. You can see this in windows in the task manager by right mouse clicking a running process and seeing the options for Set Priority in the popup menu. However dont go changing the priority of running programs & services as it can hog the CPU or make it unresponsive, all in all making the system unstable.
The thing to bear in mind with computers they are nothing more than a simple clockwork logic machine with some registers/buffers/disks/memory/place holders of sorts to handle moving data which is really just binary around. Over time they have shrunk in size, got faster and have had more software functions moved to various components like the CPU itself or some functions moved onto graphic cards, nics or disk controllers. Once you overcome the awesomeness of them, they are not really anything special imo. :)
With regard to your discovery this looks relevent now.
http://serverfault.com/questions/335461/pfsense-mbuf-full-what-to-do
And for more info on mbufs this is also relevant.
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/What_are_mbufsSo it looks like a buffer overflow of sorts which is just another aspect of managing data within an OS or program. In most walks of life like IT, Law or Medicine to name but a few, once you have overcome the terminology it becomes simpler. For example, in Law & Medicine Latin is common, in IT we have our jargon/terminology like Bits, Bytes, Ram, Firewall, & different OS's use different names to describe the same thing, eg in Windows you have services, in Linux you have daemons, even within different programming languages you will see the same, similar or completely different words used to describe the same action or outcome, plus in some languages you can also harness recursion like in C++ you have templates, but thats not to say you cant harness recursion in databases as well.
The use of jargon is designed to protect the knowledge we amass which can help to maintain domains/fiefdoms/income.
Overcome or learn the jargon/terminology and life becomes alot simpler. ;)
-
I have spent the last 2-3 mths together with lowprofile to search for something that can improve it.
We have sent numerous mails to the dev's and not much response.
We wanted to have the dev's setup a test rig so they could see for themselves how it fares and work together somehow on creating a solution for this or maybe point out what specific issues the base OS has handling the packets.
Not much has come back….if nothing at all.
Lowprofile is looking at other products to handle his scenario since he is pretty dissappointed in the whole "package" and especilly in the lack of response on a matter this important.
Right, you seem like a good guy, just like most of us are.
What is stopping us from working together? I shared why I prematurely thought you were a egotistical troll… perhaps some others share that perspective?
Or maybe we are all assholes. :)
-
What is stopping us from working together? I shared why I prematurely thought you were a egotistical troll… perhaps some others share that perspective?
Or maybe we are all assholes. :)We are all chemically motivated and biased by the data we have learnt over the long and short term, throw in the absence of body language for this medium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_language and we will fill the body language void with our own current emotions sometimes known as projecting (which can soimetimes be illuminating based on what is written above) and thus we can arrive at the wrong conclusions about someone. Emoticons/emojis sometime help but not always as some prefer to not use them as they can still be interpretted incorrectly.
-
Indeed. I personally hate emoticons too, but I have personally seen how a negative, or lack of postive, focus can send a whole thread into a negative, hateful tone of adversarial confrontations instead of people realizing they actually all have a common goal to solve the friggen problem and learn something.
-
That would be the butterfly effect to use a mathematical reference, or the emotions fear and anger in a biological sense which is driven by excessive dopamine levels derived from a variety of inputs namely music, caffeine, alcohol & drugs. Dopamine gets broken down into the stress hormones (andrenaline and epherine aka speed the amphetamine), they can be cleared within 3-4hrs in smokers but can take over twice as long in non smokers, but they do help increase spatial intelligence and I'm digressing.
Edit, you could also add in some Asch conformity & Milgrams obedience to authority from a psychological perspective as well as things are more complicated in general when dealing with biological lifeforms compared to Artificial Intelligences.
-
Thanks.
Allready changed that in system -> tunables and it made quite a difference on the low core tests.
