Thread Info
  • State Not Answered
  • +2 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Replies 21 replies
  • Subscribers 11 subscribers
  • Views 5690 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Suggested

EAP2 noticeable improvements and observations

rfcat_vk

he AP

Installed EAP2 as an upgrade to original build from ISO of the EAP v18.

Noticable imprivements

1/. less memory used

2/. load down significantly.

3/. hide linked NAT rules works in both IP4 and IPv6.

4/. classification appears to be working.too much old stuff to see exactly.

5/. still exploring

 

Question on TLS/SSL scanning with the fixes in processing mean the added user exclusions from EAP1 refresh 1 can be deleted?

The mail scanning feature could do with some better explanation about needing the ports not services field of the rule. There is an automatic add feature if you tick on it, but it is not clear as to why.

Now to wait until tomorrow to see what the reports contain?

Ian

Parents
  • 0

    My memory utilization dropped by almost 50 percent.  80% down to 42% in eap2

  • 0 in reply to Michael McCoy

    Can't see any difference... 


    MEM | tot 3.9G | free 166.9M | cache 658.2M | dirty 13.5M | buff 167.3M | slab 105.0M | slrec 70.1M | shmem 126.8M | shrss 71.2M | shswp 0.0M | | vmbal 0.0M | | hptot 0.0M | hpuse 0.0M |
    SWP | tot 1.0G | free 1.0G | | | | | | | | | | | vmcom 6.4G | vmlim 2.9G | |

     

    top - 13:07:11 up 2:03, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.22, 0.11
    Tasks: 408 total, 1 running, 353 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    Cpu(s): 1.7%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 97.0%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
    Mem: 4038100k total, 3794436k used, 243664k free, 170480k buffers
    Swap: 1048572k total, 776k used, 1047796k free, 672800k cached

    PID PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
    9889 20 0 3238m 967m 15m S 0.7 24.5 0:36.83 snort
    6643 20 0 1191m 948m 15m S 0.0 24.1 1:37.03 snort
    6415 20 0 503m 455m 15m S 0.0 11.5 0:40.14 avd
    6332 20 0 494m 109m 10m S 0.3 2.8 0:17.95 java
    6294 20 0 48024 45m 11m S 0.0 1.2 0:03.03 awed
    6902 20 0 68124 40m 22m S 0.0 1.0 0:02.65 ctasd.bin
    5148 20 0 62736 39m 10m S 0.0 1.0 0:03.35 garner
    6996 20 0 65744 37m 22m S 0.0 1.0 0:02.47 ctasd.bin
    6971 20 0 56368 29m 21m S 0.0 0.8 0:04.21 postgres
    4213 20 0 30756 28m 5084 S 0.0 0.7 0:35.47 cfs
    7989 20 0 30912 27m 5244 S 0.3 0.7 0:03.38 screenmgr.pl
    4284 20 0 27832 25m 5396 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.24 red
    6963 20 0 58620 24m 14m S 0.0 0.6 0:02.85 postgres

Reply
  • 0 in reply to Michael McCoy

    Can't see any difference... 


    MEM | tot 3.9G | free 166.9M | cache 658.2M | dirty 13.5M | buff 167.3M | slab 105.0M | slrec 70.1M | shmem 126.8M | shrss 71.2M | shswp 0.0M | | vmbal 0.0M | | hptot 0.0M | hpuse 0.0M |
    SWP | tot 1.0G | free 1.0G | | | | | | | | | | | vmcom 6.4G | vmlim 2.9G | |

     

    top - 13:07:11 up 2:03, 2 users, load average: 0.18, 0.22, 0.11
    Tasks: 408 total, 1 running, 353 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    Cpu(s): 1.7%us, 1.0%sy, 0.0%ni, 97.0%id, 0.3%wa, 0.0%hi, 0.0%si, 0.0%st
    Mem: 4038100k total, 3794436k used, 243664k free, 170480k buffers
    Swap: 1048572k total, 776k used, 1047796k free, 672800k cached

    PID PR NI VIRT RES SHR S %CPU %MEM TIME+ COMMAND
    9889 20 0 3238m 967m 15m S 0.7 24.5 0:36.83 snort
    6643 20 0 1191m 948m 15m S 0.0 24.1 1:37.03 snort
    6415 20 0 503m 455m 15m S 0.0 11.5 0:40.14 avd
    6332 20 0 494m 109m 10m S 0.3 2.8 0:17.95 java
    6294 20 0 48024 45m 11m S 0.0 1.2 0:03.03 awed
    6902 20 0 68124 40m 22m S 0.0 1.0 0:02.65 ctasd.bin
    5148 20 0 62736 39m 10m S 0.0 1.0 0:03.35 garner
    6996 20 0 65744 37m 22m S 0.0 1.0 0:02.47 ctasd.bin
    6971 20 0 56368 29m 21m S 0.0 0.8 0:04.21 postgres
    4213 20 0 30756 28m 5084 S 0.0 0.7 0:35.47 cfs
    7989 20 0 30912 27m 5244 S 0.3 0.7 0:03.38 screenmgr.pl
    4284 20 0 27832 25m 5396 S 0.0 0.6 0:00.24 red
    6963 20 0 58620 24m 14m S 0.0 0.6 0:02.85 postgres

Children
No Data
Unfiltered HTML