[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: openldap core dumping under load
Thanks Howard.
That certainly stopped the core dump.
The only issue now seems to be CPU. During these times of unusually high
load, slapd seems to use enough of the CPU to cause responses to be slow.
Slow enough for IMAP ldap auths to timeout. Everything comes good once the
mail flow slows.
Maybe I just need a faster box.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Chu" <hyc@highlandsun.com>
To: "'Gordon Shumway'" <gshumway@cityextreme.com>;
<openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: openldap core dumping under load
> I ran into a similar problem myself earlier today. Try the ITS#2404 patch
to
> libldap_r/tpool.c in CVS and let us know how it goes, that should take
care
> of it.
>
> -- Howard Chu
> Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
> http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
> Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> [mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Gordon Shumway
>
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone help with this ?
>
> Situation:
> I'm running openldap 2.1.16 with a bdb db-4.1.25 backend. I have a
sendmail
> server that queries ldap for its aliases.
>
> Problem:
> During times of high mail volume, ldap core dumps. Over a period of a
couple
> of minutes i can watch slapd consume all system memory and then crash. I
can
> simulate this quite easily with a looping perl script sending a couple of
> thousand messages.
>
> I have configured the following indexes in an attempt to improve the
> performance.
> index objectClass eq
> index cn pres,eq
> index uid pres,eq
> index sendmailMTAAliasGrouping pres,eq
> index sendmailMTAHost pres,eq
> index sendmailMTAKey pres,eq
> index sendmailMTAAliasValue pres,eq
>
> The ldap box is running FreeBSD 4.7 with a PII 350 and 512mb of ram.
> The sendmail server is a p4 2.4.
>
> Is it possible that the sendmail server is too grunty in comparison to the
> ldap server ?
>
> Thanks.
>