On Wednesday 08 March 2006 11:31, Jehan PROCACCIA wrote: > > About benchs, I've look rapidely through slamd, altough apparently a > very powerfull utility it will take some time for me to make in run, I > will probably when I'll get some time... , You can also use slapd-* from tests/progs to generate load. In my case, I wasn't that interested in the time taken to complete a search, but rather the number of searches, so I monitored performance via back-monitor. > but for now I just timed > ldapsearch and I've seen lot's of performances disparities between my > replicas , from 1m10s to less than 1s on a search on cn=* -> 3715 entries > . Shouldn't your size limit for unauthenticated searches be lower? > $ time ldapsearch -x cn=* -h openldap -b dc=int-evry,dc=fr > /dev/null > real 1m10.303s > user 0m0.424s > sys 0m0.160s > > $ time ldapsearch -x cn=* -h ldap1 -b dc=int-evry,dc=fr > /dev/null > real 0m0.709s > user 0m0.500s > sys 0m0.168s > > $ time ldapsearch -x cn=* -h ldap2 -b dc=int-evry,dc=fr > /dev/null > real 0m25.819s > user 0m0.452s > sys 0m0.184s Why are openldap and ldap2 so slow? Does the hardware differ so much? Or is it tuning (index, DB_CONFIG. limits)? Regards, Buchan -- Buchan Milne ISP Systems Specialist B.Eng,RHCE(803004789010797),LPIC-2(LPI000074592)
Attachment:
pgpQNMrQFKCzY.pgp
Description: PGP signature