Re: NFS file copy vs. snort ???

[Michael D Schleif <mds () helices org>]

* Jason <security () brvenik com> [2004:09:05:16:01:51-0400] scribed:
> Michael D Schleif wrote:
>
> > One of my main systems is connected to several NFS v3 servers; and, this
> > box also runs snort.
> >
> > Copies, like the following examples, are excruciatingly slo-o-o-o-w-w-w,
> > especially when the file is large (e.g., 250 MiB.)
> >
> >     cp -a /remote/tmp/* .
> >     cp -a * /remote/tmp/
> >
> > By `slow', I mean in the two-digit kbps ;<
> >
> > I do not find anything interesting in `vmstat', nor in
> > /var/log/{kern.log,messages,syslog}, nor is snort logging anything, in
> > this regard.
> >
> > My first clue was noticing snort in `top' alternating in the top 2 or 3
> > positions.  Stopping snort on *both* ends of the connection results in file
> > transfers that meet my expectations.
> >
> > What is going on with this?
> >
> > How can I configure snort to *not* interfere with NFS?
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I doubt Snort is interfering directly with your copy but instead you are 
> using under powered hardware for the task of serving NFS and running 
> snort.

Please, expand.  What constitutes ``under powered hardware'' in this
context?  See below.

> It sounds like Snort is using all CPU so your NFS copies are 
> slow...

No, it is *not* ``using all CPU''.  Load is typically between 1 and 2;
snort is typically using 2030% CPU; and other processes behave
un-impaired.

> try tuning snort.

Actually, that is one of the things I was asking `how to do' when I
asked:

    How can I configure snort to *not* interfere with NFS?

Please, expand with something specific.

-- 
Best Regards,

mds
-
Dare to fix things before they break . . .
-
Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much
we think we know.  The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . .
--

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature