On 04/23/2012 08:01 AM, Russell Beall wrote:
I've been running some more tests before setting up the ticket,
think I have enough information now. The uniqueMember attribute has
extra processing overhead, but the necessary optimization might apply
across the board for all attributes. I found also that adding large
sets of values for other attributes also increases modification times
heavily, though not quite as much as uniqueMember.
uniqueMember is a DN syntax attribute. DN syntax values are "expensive"
to handle due to normalization overhead.
Luckily, the modification delay is based on the size of the
modification rather than the size of the entry, so even if the
modification is done to a 100K-value attribute, if the modification is
only to remove a few members and add a few others, then the change is
still relatively quick. The delay is noticed most when first setting
up a group, for instance, adding 100K members to an empty group takes
2.5 hours on 389 as opposed to 1 minute on Sun DS.
That's very interesting. Does Sun DS have some sort of tuning parameter
for number of values? That is, they may have some threshold for number
of values in an attribute - once the number hits that threshold, they
may switch to using some sort of ADT to store the values, like a AVL
tree or hash table, rather than the simple linked list used by default.
Also during this testing I have noticed a memory leak when running
large quantities of ldapmodify operations. When I set up a loop to
delete and then re-add the eduPersonEntitlement attribute across 100K
entries, I found that memory consumption continuously increased and
the server crashed after the fifth iteration of this loop. (And this
one really is with ldapmodify and is not related to my earlier issues
with excessively creating tombstones by deleting and adding entire
entries). Before digging into this too deeply and making another
ticket, I wanted to ask if this had been noticed and fixed in the
1.2.10 release? I am using the default 18.104.22.168 release. I'm guessing
it hasn't since I didn't see it in the release notes.
Try increasing your nsslapd-cachememsize and monitoring it closely.
Using the size of id2entry.db4 is a good place to start, but that will
not be enough.
See also https://fedorahosted.org/389/ticket/51
I am starting up the server with the valgrind command you recommended
a few messages back to see if I can spot the leak, though of course
with valgrind in the mix, the overhead and runtimes are, as might be
expected, much increased.
Yes, and valgrind will report many false positives that are hard to weed
The issue you are seeing may not be a memory leak per se - see the
On Apr 19, 2012, at 1:42 PM, Rich Megginson wrote:
> OK. If you've ruled out the possibility that some plugin is
> interfering with the processing, then it must be something we will
> have to fix in the core server. Please file a ticket
389 users mailing list