Re: Second Snort instance killing performance

[Jason Haar <Jason.Haar () trimble co nz>]

Alex Butcher, ISC/ISYS wrote:

> One suggestion I have is to re-arrange your rules so that you bond 
> eth1 and eth2 together to create bond0, then run a single Snort on 
> bond0. Obviously, there are disadvantages to doing that, but 
> advantages also (state tracking across interfaces, for instance).

Can you tell us what the disadvantages are? Obviously a single snort 
process will be dealing with up to twice the packet rates it was 
previously, but is there any other gotchas?

--
Cheers

Jason Haar
Information Security Manager, Trimble Navigation Ltd.
Phone: +64 3 9635 377 Fax: +64 3 9635 417
PGP Fingerprint: 7A2E 0407 C9A6 CAF6 2B9F 8422 C063 5EBB FE1D 66D1



-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Snort-users mailing list
Snort-users () lists sourceforge net
Go to this URL to change user options or unsubscribe:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/snort-users
Snort-users list archive:
http://www.geocrawler.com/redir-sf.php3?list=snort-users