Re: make test got stuck at Testing for slave slapd...

[Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@stanford.edu>]

--On Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:41 PM -0500 Igor Brezac <igor@ipass.net> 
wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
>
> > Mark,
> >
> > Just an FYI... I've seen extremely poor performance results using Solaris
> > 9.  Sun made a major change in the way in which Solaris handles threads
> > between 8 and 9.  If you are looking to deploy a production OpenLDAP
> > service, I suggest using Solaris 8 instead of 9.
>
> Hmm..  I do not find this to be correct.  I just ran a DirectoryMark
> benchmark (100,000 entry dataset, 20 simultaneous clients, 100,000
> different search samples) on Solaris 9 - fairly recent patches, (1 CPU
> 440Mhz Ultrasparc IIi, 512MB RAM)  against Openldap 2.1.16 (tpool patch,
> latest CVS SASL, Sleepycat 4.1.25).  I am able to get over 800 searches
> per second and with more tweaking I can probably do better.
>
> This number is probably not indicative measure of a real world
> application, but it does not indicate performance problems with Solaris 9.
> I tested Solaris 8 awhile back and it performed roughly the same.

Igor,

I unfortunately have never seen the DirectoryMark's tool results have any 
resemblance to reality.  You gave me the same sort of answer when I was 
seeing massive problems with Solaris 8, with a rate  of 4-6 queries/second. 
After hiring Howard Chu to work on the system, in which he found the exact 
same results, an extensive set of patches were put in to OpenLDAP and 
related pieces of software (cyrus-sasl, heimdal, BDB, etc) before we got 
our current performance of 66/queries a second.  I have absolutely no faith 
in your results.

What I do have faith in, is having the same software set up on two 
identical systems, with the exception of one running Solaris 9 with the 
latest patches, and the other running Solaris 8 with the latest patches, 
and running the same types of query sets against both systems.  The end 
results do not match, with Solaris 9 having a markedly worse performance 
result.  It has been about a month since I last did this test, and I'd be 
willing to do it again to see if any change has occurred, but it has been 
fairly consistent that Solaris 9's performance is worse.

--Quanah

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