[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#6275) syncrepl taking long(not sync) when consumer not connect for a moment
- To: openldap-its@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: Re: (ITS#6275) syncrepl taking long(not sync) when consumer not connect for a moment
- From: email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:25:07 GMT
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated (OpenLDAP-ITS)
--On Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:39 AM -0700 Rodrigo Costa
> Please see answer in your previous e-mail below.
> I'm also sending the information I could collect attached since it is a
> small file(5KB).
> The behavior that appears strange and that could indicate a problem is
> the fact that even when consumer is stopped the provider still doing
> something for a long time. This doesn't appear to be correct.
> Other strange behavior is that when system enters in this state one
> provider CPU stays running around 100% CPU usage. I made a jmeter script
> to test individual bind/search(no ldapsearch *) and then even with some
> load(like 200 simultaneous query) I do not see CPU in 100%. Something
> doesn't appear to be ok since I do not see why CPU should enter in 100%
I explained to you previously why this would be. Other comments inline.
>> Why are you stopping the provider to do a slapcat?
> [Rodrigo]Faster dump of data. And in any case if other situation like a
> problema occurs the secondary system could stay disconnect for other
Do you have any evidence that an offline slapcat is faster than one while
slapd is running? I don't understand what you mean in the rest of that
>>> Even a small number of entrances are different when consumer in
>>> Provider 2
>>> connects to Provider 1 then syncrepl enters in the full DB search as
>> What is your sessionlog setting on each provider for the syncprov
> syncprov-checkpoint 10000 120
> syncprov-sessionlog 100000
Hm, I would probably checkpoint the cookie a lot more frequently than you
have it set to. The sessionlog setting seems fine to me.
> Same configuration in both systems.
>>> For definition purposes I have some memory limitations where I need to
>>> limit dncachesize for around 80% of DB entrances.
>> We already went through other things you could do to reduce your
>> memory footprint in other ways. You've completely ignored that
>> advice. As long as your dncachesize is in this state, I don't expect
>> things to behave normally.
> [Rodrigo]I implemented what was possible. The end is this cache config
> possible by the memory constraints :
># Cache values
># cachesize 10000
> cachesize 20000
> dncachesize 3000000
># dncachesize 400000
># idlcachesize 10000
> idlcachesize 30000
># cachefree 10
> cachefree 100
You don't say anything in here about your DB_CONFIG settings, which is
where you could stand to gain the most amount of memory back. I do see
you're definitely running a very restricted cachesize/idlcachesize. ;)
>> What value did you set for "cachefree"?
> [Rodrigo] cachefree 100
This value is likely substantially way too low for your system
configuration. This is how many entries get freed from any of the caches.
With your dncachesize being 3,000,000, removing 100 entries from it will do
hardly anything, and may be part of the issue. If it wasn't for the major
imbalance between your entry, idl, and dncachesizes, I would suggest a
fairly high value like 100,000. But given your entry cache is 20,000,
you'll probably have to limit the cachefree to 5000-10000. But it is going
to need to be higher than 100.
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration