[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
openldap 2.4.16 hangs with dncachesize smaller than max number of records
- To: openldap-software@openldap.org
- Subject: openldap 2.4.16 hangs with dncachesize smaller than max number of records
- From: Rodrigo Costa <rlvcosta@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:44:21 -0700 (PDT)
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1245033862; bh=mn4jqX62xuw7+zNL0ziETuRb/Urzw0T/ciPCN3L6Eh4=; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=GzK5w8zf4sDn+Zozg+7/Ib+QZ51YAhZbOds4sloqcE01riCRBT4G3oGEnrgx/rFFuP4mZssYRxGDkBK4/oqUbOAKONE2clM3k1+cypmX/yTmAdWcRnyOUNUKkAriDutNs/ChtidFjjJKRASjj0wRQnmtEuajpxTPlZ5y61CCfm8=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gNDGOUUebl5FmNMEvpR22uHT72oY/Akg5Ja8ruBMpVfawHjZMh5XgcDsXxaIghV0VULT2cM8SV04/W1hDrKhTw9qLM8NKWt0jCAi2KjK4fSZB82Rcasr6T7dpt2vuj4aEz1DQTLMu+99YEO09S7vZcALMm98Q+LQ32PnHGwPgjY=;
OpenLdap group,
I'm having a possible issue that could be a problem. I have a DB with
around 4 million entrances. In my slapd.conf I use the following cache
constraints :
#Cache values
cachesize 10000
dncachesize 3000000
idlcachesize 10000
cachefree 10
I'm also running the system in 2 machines in MirrorMode without problems
about this configuration.
My DB has exactly 3882992 entrances. In this way the dncachesize is
smaller than the number of records. After I move the dncache constraint
to a size smaller than the number of records(memory concern) I start to
have some issues related with ldapsearch, for example.
After the number of entrances in cache match the constraints(always pass
a little) the system hangs for new searches. It appears to be for
records "not yet" cached. If a record not cached is searched the
ldapsearch bind but hangs during search. One example can be seen below :
[root@brtldp11 ~]# time ldapsearch -LLL -x -D
"cn=admin,ou=CONTENT,o=domain,c=fr" -w secret -b
"ou=CONTENT,o=domain,c=fr" -H ldap://10.142.15.170:389
'pnnumber=+554184011071'
real 0m40.140s
user 0m0.003s
sys 0m0.001s
Just after I press CTRL-C the command stopped. It would stay forever in
this state. This happens after I ldapsearch the full DB and cache is filled.
If I then search this same record in the mirror I have the return very
fast. See example :
[root@brtldp11 ~]# time ldapsearch -LLL -x -D
"cn=admin,ou=CONTENT,o=domain,c=fr" -w secret -b
"ou=CONTENT,o=domain,c=fr" -H ldap://10.142.15.172:389
'pnnumber=+554184011071'
dn:
pnnumber=\2B554184011071,uid=1219843774965\2B554184011071,ou=REPOSITORY,ou
=CONTENT,o=domain,c=fr
subpnid: 0
pntype: 2
pncaps: 7
objectClass: phoneinfo
pnnumber: +554184011071
real 0m0.257s
user 0m0.002s
sys 0m0.003s
So this is doesn't appear to be a record problem since also both systems
are in mirror mode. Also the return is in a reasonable time, in around
257 miliseconds. After cached it can even be faster.
See the number of entrances I could search before system hangs :
[root@brtldp12 ~]# wc -l /backup/temp2.txt
3078804 /backup/temp2.txt
The number was 3,078,804 records since even dncache boundary is
3,000,000 it always pass a little.
Appears that if a cache boundary is smaller than number of DB records
slapd can hang when searching for new records not yet cached. Since I
have multiple DBs with this order of records I needed to impose this
boundary smaller than the number of records. My expectation was some
performance degradation after cache is filled but not that system could
hang(at least for non cached records).
After this situation happens the slapd process does not ends correctly
only after kill -9 is given in the process.
I would like to know if someone already passed by this situation and I
believe it can be easily reproduced with cache configuration smaller
than the number of records. I believe any DB in this situation could
reproduce the same behavior.
Any comments if this could be a configuration issue or some other
related issue? Would this be a ITS?
Thanks,
Rodrigo.