[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: slapd-bdb cachesize
On Wed, 12 Mar 2003, Howard Chu wrote:
> There appears to be a memory leak in slapd related to modifying entries,
> adding new values to attributes. I've fixed it in CVS HEAD. The fix for
> 2.1.15 is a bit different, will appear later.
> As I mentioned before, if you suspect a memory leak, then you should get hold
> of a malloc debugging tool and try to verify whether a leak actually exists
> or not. If you're running on Linux, my hack of FunctionCheck (version 1.5.1)
> is pretty useful for this purpose. It's what I use to track these issues.
Well, I use Solaris so this will not work for me. I located CSRIMALLOC
and I will try to rebuild openldap. Do you have any other debugger
> You can use it too. Please do.
> -- Howard Chu
> Chief Architect, Symas Corp. Director, Highland Sun
> http://www.symas.com http://highlandsun.com/hyc
> Symas: Premier OpenSource Development and Support
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> > [mailto:owner-openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org]On Behalf Of Tino Lange
> > Hi Igor!
> > Good to hear someone has the same problem.
> > I also realized that my slapd is constantly growing, to IMHO rather
> > unexpected sizes.
> > But: despite questioning this list unfortunately noone
> > answered so far,
> > whether this is normal behaviour or not
> > (See my postings: "BDB log.xxx Files" thread started 26.02.2003 17:25
> > and later seperately as "slapd memory usage (was: Re: BDB log.xxx
> > Files)" started 28.02.2003 15:57)
> > In those mails you can find details about my setup.
> > My slapd's start with about 2.5 MB and grow by time slowly
> > quite some MB
> > a day (in the first days faster of course, this seems to be
> > the normal
> > caching). When it reaches about 300 MB I restart the process
> > (which is
> > much more than one MB for each entry in the database!!!)
> > Meanwhile I tried inserting the checkpoint option in
> > slapd.conf to avoid
> > also using lots of diskspace, this works fine so far, but
> > doesn't seem
> > to reduce the memory hunger.
> > I also recompiled OpenLDAP with the new BDB related patch for
> > Berkeley
> > DB (188.8.131.52) - but this doesn't seem to help, too.
> > Could you please give some more information about your setup, your
> > database, your indices, your usage - so we can compare and
> > collect this
> > information? Maybe the others on the list can give us more
> > hints then, -
> > the more they know the better they might help us, hopefully.
> > Best regards
> > Tino