[Bro] cluster question
neslog at gmail.com
Fri Oct 7 10:29:57 PDT 2016
Is that formula based on Myricom NIC or using PF_Ring? What's the best way
to calculate the expected increase when switching to a custom nic?
On Oct 7, 2016 12:31 PM, "Hovsep Levi" <hovsep.sanjay.levi at gmail.com> wrote:
> You sound a little confused, multi-node scaling is a feature of Bro and
> really the only way to monitor high volume locations. See the LBNL paper
> on Bro at 100G for an example. When using a front-end load-balancer you
> are distributing the traffic directly to the worker nodes which in turn
> produce metadata to be sent to the manager node.
> The decision to use more than one box is relative to the processing
> requirements, the basic formula is something like one 3.0 Ghz core per
> 250Mbps of traffic.
> If you use multiple managers you break global visibility in the scripting
> context, proxies share state among the entire cluster which operates as a
> sort of giant shared memory space. Multiple managers is essentially
> independent Bro clusters. I think a basic example would be a scanning
> script or SQL injection script... if the threshold is 25 and 10.1.1.1
> attacks your entire network each cluster only sees 1/n of that activity and
> may not fire an event because of the limited context.
> As for the bandwidth concerns you mention I'm not sure what you mean
> exactly. The metadata produced by the workers and sent to the manager
> (logs) are a fraction of the monitored raw traffic.
> On Fri, Oct 7, 2016 at 12:02 PM, erik clark <philosnef at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I noticed the previous gentleman running 160 workers (I assume 16 boxes
>> with 10 workers each??) in a cluster, and had a general question about this.
>> If I am pumping out well above 5Gb/s, doesn't that mean running in a
>> cluser that I am pushing 5 right back out the other side? If so, this
>> doesn't seem to scale well beyond 5ish Gb/s.
>> At what point, and how many pps, should we move away from a single
>> manager host talking to cluster hosts? Even if there is no processing by
>> bro on the manager, you still have bandwidth issues, unless you are loading
>> up your bro manager with multiple 10 gig nics, and are loadbalancing
>> upstream, in which case, why aren't you just load balancing to stand alone
>> boxes each with their own manager, logger, and set of workers?
>> It seems to me that running multiple physical bro hosts tied to a single
>> manager is the poor mans solution to running proper load balancing hardware
>> upstream. Am I mistaken?
>> Bro mailing list
>> bro at bro-ids.org
> Bro mailing list
> bro at bro-ids.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bro