Hi Mark,
Thanks for all your help. I was able to role back to the 1.3.7 base just by stopping
services, removing the new packages, install the old packages, and start the service back
up. In the process I lost the ability to start the "dirsrv.target" but I can
start the individual instances without any problems.
Cache settings are staying as configured!
Paul M. Whitney, RHCSA, CISSP
Chesapeake IT Consulting, Inc.
2680 Tobacco Rd
Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732
Work: 443-492-2872
Cell: 410.493.9448
Email: paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com<mailto:paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this facsimile message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this
message contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of the
sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using
or disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the federal
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or electronic message in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return or destroy the original
message to assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
________________________________
From: Mark Reynolds <mreynolds(a)redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 1:03:04 PM
To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.; Paul Whitney; William
Brown
Subject: Re: [389-users] Re: Problem with userRoot cache (last one)
On 1/16/19 12:42 PM, Paul Whitney wrote:
Mark,
Thank you for figuring out the issue we are having. Question, is it possible for us to
roll back/downgrade the 389-ds to a "previously" working version?
You'd have to go back to 389-ds-base-1.3.7, but I don't know if that's
possible on CentOS 7.6, you'd probably have to go back to CentOS 7.5 as well I would
think. :-(
Paul M. Whitney, RHCSA, CISSP
Chesapeake IT Consulting, Inc.
2680 Tobacco Rd
Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732
Work: 443-492-2872
Cell: 410.493.9448
Email: paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com<mailto:paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this facsimile message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this
message contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of the
sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using
or disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the federal
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or electronic message in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return or destroy the original
message to assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
________________________________
From: Mark Reynolds <mreynolds@redhat.com><mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 12:16:19 PM
To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.; Paul Whitney; William
Brown
Subject: Re: [389-users] Re: Problem with userRoot cache (last one)
On 1/16/19 12:05 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
On 1/16/19 12:02 PM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
Hi Paul,
Okay I think I found the bug you are running into:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1627512
https://pagure.io/389-ds-base/issue/49618
So sounds like you need to upgrade to:
389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-21 (RHEL/Centos 7.6)
Or build the upstream 1.3.7 server yourself using the commit found in the pagure ticket
above.
Apologies, you are on 1.3.8, so yeah you need to get on 1.3.8.4-21 or higher. Might have
to wait for CentOS to pick up the latest builds?
Looks like 1.3.8.4-22 is going to be in RHEL(Centos) batch update 3. So it's not
available yet, sorry, but should be next month (not sure how fast Centos picks up RHEL
updates)
So in the meantime I would increase the autosize values to take advantage of your RAM.
See the wiki link I sent you earlier, and also checkout the admin guide:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10...
Good luck,
Mark
Regards,
Mark
On 1/16/19 11:38 AM, Mark Reynolds wrote:
Hey Paul,
On 1/16/19 10:14 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
We were on version: 389-ds-base-1.3.7.5-24.
What OS?
The nsslapd-cache-autosize was set to 0. We apply our own values.
To keep us afloat we have been forced to enable nsslapd-cache-autosize. However, our
performance has degraded in response times and feel we are not able to better
allocate/customize the cache settings as they relate to each database.
System: Virtual Machine
8-CPU
64GB RAM (of which 35G is free)
Two databases in the slapd instance:
userRoot = 21G
groupRoot = 1.8G
When we try to allocate anything above 50% for nsslapd-cache-autosize, the service fails
to start stating values cannot exceed 100.
When we disable nsslapd-cache-autosize, and punch in our numbers:
nsslapd-cache-autosize = 0
nsslapd-dbcachesize = 1073741824
nsslapd-cachememsize = 2147483648 (groupRoot) and 23622320128 (userRoot)
Service overwrites our settings and sets both databases to 2147483648. While that is ok
for groupRoot, it is not for userRoot.
Based on this information, is there a way/recommendation to:
1. To force these values we enter to "stick"
Well setting autosize to zero and explicitly setting the cache attributes is all it should
take for it to stick
1. How can I better configure the auto cache sizing of these entries?
Start here:
http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html (checkout the
manual tuning section)
You can tune the autosizing to use more cache, but it is uniform across all backends:
groupRoot and userRoot would use the same values.
I would offer logs if I could, but we cannot get them off the system. It is hosted in a
disconnected environment.
The logs would say why the server thinks it needs to resize your caches (a bug?), but it
sounds like autosizing is not the issue here since it is set to zero. I'm not sure
what else I can offer up without more log information. I suspect the server is not
properly detecting the 64gigs of memory, and thinks you have much less, which is why
it's downsizing the cache values. This is all speculation without being able to look
at the errors log (during startup). I find it very odd you can not get access to your own
logs, it's such a vital part of the server, you should really get that addressed or
else we can't really help you :(
Regards,
Mark
Paul M. Whitney, RHCSA, CISSP
Chesapeake IT Consulting, Inc.
2680 Tobacco Rd
Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732
Work: 443-492-2872
Cell: 410.493.9448
Email: paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com<mailto:paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com>
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this facsimile message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this
message contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of the
sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using
or disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the federal
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or electronic message in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return or destroy the original
message to assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
________________________________
From: William Brown <wbrown@suse.de><mailto:wbrown@suse.de>
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2019 7:22:18 PM
To: 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Cc: Paul Whitney
Subject: Re: [389-users] Problem with userRoot cache
On 16 Jan 2019, at 06:49, Mark Reynolds
<mreynolds@redhat.com><mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com> wrote:
What version were you previously on?
Sounds like an issue with autocache sizing. The errors log might give more info about
why its being reset.
Also check if "nsslapd-cache-autosize" is set under "cn=config,cn=ldbm
database,cn=plugins,cn=config". If it is, set it to zero to stop the autosizing.
Certainly is sounds like autosizing is still enabled here and is just resetting your
values on you.
On 1/15/19 3:42 PM, Paul Whitney wrote:
> We recently updated to 389-ds-base-1.3.8.4-18. I am not sure I can attribute this
issue to this update since we are now just discovering it. But setting the
nsslapd-cachememsize is reverting to a default value of 2GB. I have attempted to restore
the value through the console and restarting the instance. I have also tried by stopping
instance and manually editing the dse.ldif file. In both cases, the value is replaced
with 2GB value.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Paul M. Whitney
> RHCSA, VCP, CISSP, Security+
> Chesapeake IT Consulting, Inc.
> 2680 Tobacco Rd
> Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732
>
> Work: 443-492-2872
> Cell: 410.493.9448
> Email: paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com<mailto:paul.whitney@chesapeake-it.com>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
> The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is confidential
information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for
delivering this facsimile message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this
message contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of the
sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using
or disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the federal
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or electronic message in
error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return or destroy the original
message to assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 389-users mailing list --
> 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
> To unsubscribe send an email to
>
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
>
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>
> List Guidelines:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>
> List Archives:
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
—
Sincerely,
William Brown
Software Engineer, 389 Directory Server
SUSE Labs
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list --
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
To unsubscribe send an email to
389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org<mailto:389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproje...