[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: ITS#5860 slapd in openldap-2.4.16 still doesn't respect memory bounds

2009/4/17, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com>:
> --On Friday, April 17, 2009 10:25 PM +0300 sscdvp@gmail.com wrote:
> > Why do you have so many threads configured?  How many cpu's do you have??
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > I have tried openldap-2.4.16 (latest) BDB 4.7.25 with all patches from
> > > Oracle on Dell AMD64 RAM 4Gb, 8 CPUs, OS Solaris 10.
> > >
> >
> > I have an application which generates heavy load in slapd (many
> > ldap_search'es and very very many ldap_add, ldap_modify, ldap_delete).
> > BDB databases are situated on separate disk and BDB logs are on the other
> > disk. But slapd performance (I mean time to answer) still cuts
> > down during large disk IO periods 'cause these disks are used by other
> > applications at the same time. And so I have increased number of threads
> > from the defaults threads=32 up to 64, just to save some time for my
> > application which requires not more then 30 ms for one search to
> > complete.
> > Just to be sure I have tried the default settings for threads and it's
> > behaviour didn't changed - slapd heap memory just continuously grows (I
> > have seen through pmap)...
> > Also I have tried libtcmalloc which is usually recommended and solaris
> > built in' libmtmalloc, but it didn't helped.
> >
> Please copy replies to the bug tracker if you expect help.
> I will note that every thread consumes a large chunk of memory.  I will also
> note that the default is 16 threads, not 32.  I will also note, that as far
> as read operations are concerned, usually *fewer* threads is faster, not
> more.
>You appear to have quite an excessive amount of threads configured.

I have mentioned that using the defaults didn't helped. Probably I was
mistaken about the default number of threads - but if keywords
"threads" is missing in config it simply means the defaults, right?
May be threads should be lower then the defaults (e.g. 6 or 8)?