[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: SLOW Performance: OpenLDAP on Linux and IBM Dual Xeon?
I am using OpenLDAP 2.2.8 with BDB 4.2.52, heimdal 0.6, and cyrus-sasl
2.1.18. All machines are on the same kernel with the same cache size
setups, same dataset, and the tests query the same uids. The most bizarre
part is that my Dell Dual Xeon 2.8 Ghz is only able to do 5000 queries a
mere 10 seconds faster than my Pentium 3 700Mhz. And my IBM Dual Xeon
2.0Ghz comes in last, taking almost 3 times longer.
I need to see if this is an OpenLDAP specific problem or a general system
problem, as mentioned. My HTTPD tests showed equal performance and was
therefore inconclusive. Is there another test suite I could try?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Allen (ldap) [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:12 PM
> To: Digant Kasundra
> Cc: openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
> Subject: Re: SLOW Performance: OpenLDAP on Linux and IBM Dual Xeon?
> I'm running OpenLDAP with RedHat ES 3 on a Dell 1600SC Dual Xeon. I
> have no issues with speed (as you note). However, I don't have a
> similar IBM box to do comparisons.
> First, are your tests valid to each-other? Same version of
> Same data backend?
> Second, you might want to look at differences in the architecture. I
> would immediately be suspicious of your Disk setup, and
> overall non-LDAP
> load differences. Perhaps check for Kernel or driver updates
> from IBM.
> Finally, as is commonly mentioned in this list, you may want
> to consider
> upgrading to the Latest OpenLDAP sources, and if you are on recent
> OpenLDAP sources, what version?
> Thank you,
> Gary Allen
> Digant Kasundra wrote:
> > Has anyone had any experience with running Openldap on Linux (Redhat
> > Enterprise Linux in my case but any linux would be of interest)
> > running on IBM Dual Xeon boxes? I'm still having weird performance
> > issues with it. I also tested on a Dell Dual Xeon and it
> didn't seem
> > quite nearly as slow. For some reason, it runs horrible slow on my
> > IBM Dual Xeon's (load shoots up easily and exponentially as
> I increase
> > the number of simultaneous connections).
> > Any help or insight would be helpful!