[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: openldap2.4.16 and BDB4.7 not sync configured as provider/consumer
On Sunday 03 May 2009 04:15:47 Rodrigo Costa wrote:
> openldap software,
> Sometime ago I open the ITS#5860 about some memory cache limitations not
> being respected by config files. Even this issue was solved when I tried
> to configured openldap to use replication(syncrepl) the system never
> enter into sync and the behavior appears similar to the ITS#5860 bug.
> The system start to sync and in the provider(master) I see the query for
> the DB sync. But the consumer(slave) memory consumption start to grow
> very fast making me to constrain much more the dncachesize to a 1/10 of
> the size of the provider(master) where at least system doesn't crash at
> Since changes were done in the openldap 2.4.16 I download and made tests
> with this version. I get into the same behavior with consumer(slave)
> never getting in sync with provider(master).
> The behaviors are :
> 1) Consumer(slave) start query to the provider(master) DB;
> 2) Memory allocation and number of threads in the provider(master) start
> to increase as expected;
> 3) dncachesize directive into provider(master) controls as expected the
> maximum memory to be allocated by slapd process in provider(master);
> 4) Consumer(slave) consumer memory in a much faster pace. dncachesize
> configured to 1/10 of provider(master) to avoid memory allocation problems;
> 5) After sometime the consumer(slave) CPU usage maintains in 200%.
> Provider(master) stays with low CPU usage, around 1 to 3 %;
> 6) A new provisioning in provider(master) isn't propagated to
> 7) Bases never get in sync and CPU usage in consumer still high. Queries
> to provider(master) are answer very fast and even multiple individual
> queries to consumer(slave) are also answer in reasonable time.
> It looks like could exist certain issue in the replication logic where
> some processing dead loop could be found by the replication
> consumer(slave) logic.
> The newest openldap version and Berkeley DB 4.7 with all patches were
> compiled in the platform running the code.
> Any idea about this behavior?
I have seen behaviour like this when there was something preventing
synchronisation, and the comsumer would spawn more consumer threads, until the
box ran out of memory. I fixed the real issue, and haven't seen it since (and
haven't had time to try and reproduce it).
However, on a large database, you may have better success by initialising the
consumer via 'slapadd' with an export from a provider, instead of using
syncrepl to do it. Since slapadd can run multiple threads (syncrepl only runs
one thread), and doesn't need to bother serving client requests, and can run
without transactions (see -q flag), it is much more efficient.
Note that you could consider different tuning for import vs run-time, e.g. I
usually increase the BDB cache_size for imports with slapadd, and decrease it