Hi Jim
please note that when using distribution to multiple applications (using a 
comma-separated list in -n), 
the fan-out API is used which supports up to 32 egress queues total, in your 
case you are using 73 queues,
thus I guess only the first 32 instances are receiving traffic (and maybe 
duplicated traffic due to a wrong 
egress mask) . I will add a check for this in zbalance_ipc to avoid this kind 
of misconfigurations.

Alfredo

> On 13 Oct 2016, at 22:35, Jim Hranicky <j...@ufl.edu> wrote:
> 
> I'm testing out a new server (36 cores, 72 with HT) using
> zbalance_ipc, and it seems occasionally some packets are
> getting sent to multiple processes. 
> 
> I'm currently running zbalance_ipc like so: 
> 
>  /usr/local/pf/bin/zbalance_ipc -i zc:ens5f0 -m 4 -n 72,1 -c 99 -g 0 -S 1
> 
> with 72 snorts like so: 
> 
>  /usr/sbin/snort -D -i zc:99@$i --daq-dir=/usr/lib64/daq \
>  --daq-var clusterid=99 --daq-var bindcpu=$i --daq pfring_zc \
>  -c /etc/snort/ufirt-snort-pf-ewan.conf -l /var/log/snort69 -R ($i + 1)
> 
> I've got a custom HTTP rule to catch GETs with a particular 
> user-agent. I run 100 GETs, and each GET request has the run
> number and timestamp in the url. (GET /1/<ts>, GET /2/<ts>, etc) 
> and this is what I end up getting when I check the GETs : 
> 
>      1 GET /11
>      1 GET /2
>      1 GET /30
>      1 GET /34
>      1 GET /37
>      1 GET /5
>      1 GET /59
>      1 GET /62
>      1 GET /70
>      1 GET /8
>      1 GET /83
>      1 GET /84
>      1 GET /9
>      1 GET /90
>      1 GET /94
>      1 GET /95
>     16 GET /97
>     20 GET /12
>     20 GET /38
> 
> Obviously I'm still running into packet loss, but several of the
> GETs are getting sent to multiple processes: 
> 
>    ens5f0.33 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.53 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.42 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.44 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.46 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.35 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.67 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.34 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.36 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.62 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.70 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.65 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.57 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.63 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.68 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.38 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.49 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.61 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.32 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
>    ens5f0.72 GET /12/2016-10-13.14:04:49 HTTP/1.1
> 
> Is this an issue with the zbalance_ipc hash? I tried using
> 
>  -m 1
> 
> but it seemed like I ended up dropping even more packets. 
> 
> Any advice/pointers appreciated. 
> 
> --
> Jim Hranicky
> Data Security Specialist
> UF Information Technology
> 105 NW 16TH ST Room #104 GAINESVILLE FL 32603-1826
> 352-273-1341
> _______________________________________________
> Ntop-misc mailing list
> Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it
> http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

_______________________________________________
Ntop-misc mailing list
Ntop-misc@listgateway.unipi.it
http://listgateway.unipi.it/mailman/listinfo/ntop-misc

Reply via email to