On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Borkmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 05:39 AM, Jon Schipp wrote:
>>
>> netsniff-ng did _much_ better as the RX ring buffer size increased.
>> Trafgen generated packets roughly at 70,000/sec and hit 150,000/sec
>> here and there.
>
>
> On what packet size, what hardware? Gigabit Eth. or 10Gigabit/s Eth.?

Packet Size:
http://fossies.org/linux/misc/netsniff-ng-0.5.7.tar.gz:a/netsniff-ng-0.5.7/src/examples/trafgen/nst_udp_pkt_1472.txf

Two Gigabit Ethernet cards, linked directly. Don't know the hardware
off the top of my head, have to look.

> At leat on Gigabit Ethernet I can generate almost linerate with
> trafgen, in other words same speed as pktgen in the kernel, e.g.
> ~1,35Mio pps on 64 Byte pps, or 80k pps for 1500 Byte pps, etc.

Well, I was getting close to 80k, stayed above 70k, seen 77k a lot
with ifpps. I didn't do a small packet test though.

> Your measurements do not show that and I find this a bit confusing,
> also you do not show std. deviation, how many runs you did, etc.

I did 3 each but did not write them all down because netsniff-ng
dropped less packets than daemonlogger for every test.
I was presuming a quick test for the mailing list, did it right before
bed, I can do a more thorough post later.
I believe that this is satisfactory to show that netsniff-ng performed
better, or at the least, on my system.
I wasn't concerned with trafgen performance and didn't tune anything.
Default installation of Ubuntu Server.

>> I have old equipment. For each test the sniffer was sent an SIGINT
>> after 30 seconds.
>> To get stats with daemonlogger I had to apply this patch:
>> http://www.inetric.com/downloads/dlsp/daemonlogger-stats-1.2.1.patch.bz2
>>
>> Used in each case to generate large packets
>> # trafgen --in nst_udp_pkt_1472.txf --out eth1
>>
>> ./daemonlogger -i eth2
>> [-] Interface set to eth2
>> [-] Log filename set to "daemonlogger.pcap"
>> [-] Pidfile configured to "daemonlogger.pid"
>> [-] Pidpath configured to "/var/run"
>> [-] Rollover size set to 18446744071562067968 bytes
>> [-] Rollover time configured for 0 seconds
>> [-] Pruning behavior set to oldest IN DIRECTORY
>>
>> -*> DaemonLogger <*-
>> Version 1.2.1
>> By Martin Roesch
>> (C) Copyright 2006-2007 Sourcefire Inc., All rights reserved
>>
>> sniffing on interface eth2
>> start_sniffing() device eth2 network lookup:    eth2: no IPv4 address
>> assigned
>> Logging packets to daemonlogger.pcap.1361852851
>> Quitting!
>> Received by filter: 2242808; Dropped by Kernel: 738578 (32.93%);
>> Dropped by Interface: 0;
>>
>> # ring buffer mode ( -r )
>> # ./daemonlogger -r -i eth2
>> [-] Interface set to eth2
>> [-] Log filename set to "daemonlogger.pcap"
>> [-] Pidfile configured to "daemonlogger.pid"
>> [-] Pidpath configured to "/var/run"
>> [-] Ringbuffer active
>> [-] Rollover size set to 18446744071562067968 bytes
>> [-] Rollover time configured for 0 seconds
>> [-] Pruning behavior set to oldest IN DIRECTORY
>>
>> -*> DaemonLogger <*-
>> Version 1.2.1
>> By Martin Roesch
>> (C) Copyright 2006-2007 Sourcefire Inc., All rights reserved
>>
>> sniffing on interface eth2
>> start_sniffing() device eth2 network lookup:    eth2: no IPv4 address
>> assigned
>> Logging packets to daemonlogger.pcap.1361852754
>> Quitting!
>> Received by filter: 2264939; Dropped by Kernel: 778509 (34.37%);
>> Dropped by Interface: 0;
>>
>> # netsniff-ng --in eth2 --out dump -s -V
>> RX: 238.41 MiB, 122064 Frames, each 2048 Byte allocated
>> Running! Hang up with ^C!
>>
>>       2273174  packets incoming
>>       1651930  packets passed filter
>>        621244  packets failed filter (out of space)
>>       27.3294% packet droprate
>>            45  sec, 379233 usec in total
>>
>> # netsniff-ng --in eth2 --out dump --ring-size 500MiB -s -V
>> RX: 500.00 MiB, 256000 Frames, each 2048 Byte allocated
>> Running! Hang up with ^C!
>>
>>       2262449  packets incoming
>>       1775626  packets passed filter
>>        486823  packets failed filter (out of space)
>>       21.5175% packet droprate
>>            47  sec, 808032 usec in total
>>
>> # netsniff-ng --in eth2 --out dump --ring-size 1GiB -s -V
>> RX: 1024.00 MiB, 524288 Frames, each 2048 Byte allocated
>> Running! Hang up with ^C!
>>
>>       2238213  packets incoming
>>       1969897  packets passed filter
>>        268316  packets failed filter (out of space)
>>       11.9880% packet droprate
>>            63  sec, 296087 usec in total
>>
>> # netsniff-ng --in eth2 --out dump --ring-size 2GiB -s -V
>> RX: 2048.00 MiB, 1048576 Frames, each 2048 Byte allocated
>> Running! Hang up with ^C!
>>
>>       2184949  packets incoming
>>       2184949  packets passed filter
>>             0  packets failed filter (out of space)
>>        0.0000% packet droprate
>>            44  sec, 871286 usec in total
>>
>> I'll do a future blog post with more detail (cpu, interrupts, disk I/O
>> etc.) comparing other tools too.
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Jon Schipp <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Configuring a new non-production server before I head home from work.
>>> Heading out of town for the weekend.
>>> Will be able to test sometime next weekend.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 6:25 AM,  <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:43:57 PM UTC+3:30, Daniel Borkmann
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02/12/2013 02:30 PM, Jon Schipp wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have any benchmarks between the two but I can recall from
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> personal experience that netsniff-ng was able to write all packets to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> disk
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> when daemonlogger, under similar load, was dropping some of them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Since benchmarks would be nice to have, I'll work on that soon.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd also be curious on that, i.e. a comparison of those tools under
>>>>> 10Gbps.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> any update?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "netsniff-ng" group.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>> an email to [email protected].
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "netsniff-ng" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"netsniff-ng" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to