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

Re: thread problem OpenLDAP 2.1.8 + Solaris 8

At 04:02 PM 2002-12-02, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>>I note that a query like this is actually quite complex... and includes
>>all the TCP establishment, maybe DNS reverse lookups, SASL authentication
>>and security layer establishment, identity mapping (possible with search
>>indirection), ....   That is, a lot more than a single LDAP search

BTW, besides complexity point, this also serves to list areas
to look into for performance problems.

>>>A few things we have noticed:
>>>One:  slapd spends a lot of time determining the ACL's for attributes,
>>>every single time a query is made, instead of caching the ACL's.  I am
>>>interested in its #1523, but do not have access to the patches.  Would
>>>it be possible to send them to me, so I can see if that improves our
>>>performance any?
>>Seems the patch was uploaded under a different name.  I've added a symlink
>>to the repository so that URL in the ITS now works.
>Thanks.  I've updated it to patch against OpenLDAP-2.1.8.  Would you like the new patches put anywhere?

You can upload to the FTP server and then submit the URL as an update
to the existing ITS.  <mailto:openldap-its@openldap.org?subject=ITS#1523>

>Unfortunately, this acl caching is only per connection, rather than persistent across connections, so it doesn't do what I was hoping.

If you're willing to experiment, you might consider looking at
ITS#2182 and ITS#2183.  If you are not willing to experiment,
you might consider trying back-ldbm.  It's more stable, especially
for large directories.  If you want transactional (back-bdb) master,
you might consider back-ldbm at the slaves.

>>>Two:  slapd will be very responsive and quick in its answers for a
>>>period of time, then will just hang for several seconds, or greatly slow
>>>down the rate at which it is returning queries.  It will then pick up
>>>again, being quite responsive.
>>I would look at three areas were such can easily occur.  One, something
>>in the connection accept code (which is single threaded) hanging up on
>>something... like reverse DNS lookups.   Two, something in the
>>lower-level authentication framework (SASL,GSSAPI,Kerberos) hanging
>>things up.  Three, contention for DB pages (if using back-bdb) or the
>>LDBM giant r/w lock (if using back-ldbm).
>We run a local dns caching system, so reverse lookups should not be a problem.  Regardless, I turned off reverse-lookups, and ran our tests, and I still had delays of up to 5 seconds between starting a search & getting a result (and that was with just a single machine querying). Also, given the fact that we see the same cyclical pausing issues when we do tests where we are doing anonymous binds, I believe that SASL/GSSAPI/Kerberos is not at issue either.  I do agree that contention for the DB could possibly be an issue.  We are hoping to have a consultant in in the near future to help with the DB bit.  I unfortunately am not clear on how to read the conflict matrix that is created by Berkeley DB.  I will take a look at the TCP/IP connections being in TIME_WAIT as well.

The two BDB cache patches above may help resolve the back-bdb problems...

>Quanah Gibson-Mount
>Senior Systems Administrator
>ITSS/TSS/Computing Systems
>Stanford University
>GnuPG Public Key: http://www.stanford.edu/~quanah/pgp.html