[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: HDB compared with LMDB
For write rates see
https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/OpenLDAP_MDB_vs_HDB_performance
> On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <quanah@zimbra.com> wrote:
>
> Tools that do not provide distributed capabilities are generally worthless for benching marking LDAP as the client itself is the bottleneck.
>
> For read rates see
> https://mishikal.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/openldap-a-comparison-of-back-mdb-and-back-hdb-performance/
>
> --Quanah
>
>
>> On Sep 17, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Philip Colmer <philip.colmer@linaro.org> wrote:
>>
>> We're currently using OpenLDAP 2.4.38 on our production server using
>> HDB as the database type. I wanted to upgrade to the latest version
>> and take advantage of LMDB as the database type so I've built a second
>> server and transferred the data.
>>
>> Before making that server the production server, we're running
>> performance comparisons, using ldclt[1] as a stress test tool.
>>
>> I don't know if anyone else has got any experience of using this tool;
>> the output we're getting when running the tool doesn't show
>> significant differences in performance, but I'm not sure if it is just
>> the test type we're running or the fact that, actually, we shouldn't
>> be expecting significant differences ...
>>
>> I've included the output below. I've removed the details of our
>> servers from the command line.
>>
>> Can someone who has made a transition from HDB to LMDB give an
>> indication of whether or not we should see a performance difference on
>> LDAP queries and, if yes, by what sort of factor?
>>
>> If you are familiar with ldclt, should we be running different tests
>> to get a better insight into how the two servers compare?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Philip
>>
>> [1] http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/816-6400-10/ldclt.html
>>
>> 2.4.38 with HDB:
>> ldclt -f uid=testXXXXX -e esearch,random -r0 -R99999 -I 32
>> ldclt version 4.23
>> ldclt[1979]: Starting at Thu Sep 17 11:28:51 2015
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 109.70/thr ( 109.70/sec), total: 1097
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 115.00/thr ( 115.00/sec), total: 1150
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 111.90/thr ( 111.90/sec), total: 1119
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 115.20/thr ( 115.20/sec), total: 1152
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 113.70/thr ( 113.70/sec), total: 1137
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 111.20/thr ( 111.20/sec), total: 1112
>> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148
>> ldclt[1979]: Global average rate: 1021.10/thr (113.46/sec), total: 10211
>>
>> 2.4.41 with MDB:
>> ldclt -f uid=testXXXXX -e esearch,random -r0 -R99999 -I 32
>> ldclt version 4.23
>> ldclt[1967]: Starting at Thu Sep 17 11:26:55 2015
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 109.70/thr ( 109.70/sec), total: 1097
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 111.00/thr ( 111.00/sec), total: 1110
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.20/thr ( 112.20/sec), total: 1122
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 113.00/thr ( 113.00/sec), total: 1130
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.70/thr ( 112.70/sec), total: 1127
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.50/thr ( 112.50/sec), total: 1125
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 113.00/thr ( 113.00/sec), total: 1130
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.80/thr ( 112.80/sec), total: 1128
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.30/thr ( 112.30/sec), total: 1123
>> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.90/thr ( 112.90/sec), total: 1129
>> ldclt[1967]: Global average rate: 1122.10/thr (112.21/sec), total: 11221
>