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

Re: 2.1 & 2.2 statistics, and some odd behavior that needs to be examined.

--On Wednesday, February 11, 2004 3:37 PM -0500 Jong <jongchoi@OpenLDAP.org> wrote:

Oh... I was referring to the difference in the slapadding performance -
7~8 hours vs. 2 hours
in your old mail. But the same assesment can be applied to the read
application as well, because BDB needs to write to the memory pool even
when read is performed -> the entries read from disk drive need to be
written to the BDB memory pool, and from the viewpoint of the BDB memory
pool, it is that continuous writes are taking place when entries are
brought from the database file.


This explanation really does not explain what I'm seeing. By what you say above, simple binds & SASL binds should see the same performance issues, because the memory pool will be getting dirty either way. That is *not* what is happening, if you read through my post on this:

SASL-based queries: 28 ans/sec average
anonymous queries: 222 ans/sec average

If what you are saying were true, I should have even *worse* performance with the anonymous queries, because they would be dirtying the memory pool faster.


Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Developer
ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems
ITSS/TSS/Infrastructure Operations
Stanford University
GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html