On 6/23/20 11:42 AM, David Boreham wrote:
On 6/23/2020 9:34 AM, Emmanuel Kasprzyk wrote:
> I am working on large Directory Server topology, which is reaching
> very fast the amount of available locks in BDB ( cf
>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1831812 )
>
> - Can the planned switch in 389-ds-base-1.4.next to LMDB help for
> such cases ?
Yes, we should not see this particular issue with LMDB
> ( Especially after reading "The database structure is
multi-versioned
> so readers run with no locks" on
http://www.lmdb.tech/doc/index.html )
>
Probably better to fix the bug in DS that cases it to run a long
running transaction with repeatable reads isolation?
In 389 what we are seeing is that our backend txn plugins are doing
unindexed searches, but I would not call it a bug. It's really a
configuration/indexing issue. But yes, there are long running
operations/txns in regards to many plugins doing a lot of things while
the database is being updated in the same nested operation. Now when
these internal searches are properly indexed the db lock issue
completely goes away. The bug that Emmanuel is referring to is still
under investigation. We have yet to identify the internal unindexed
search in this customer's case, but a patch/fix was created that would
log the required information we need to track it down and fix the config.
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
--
389 Directory Server Development Team