Tuning 389 DS
Hi
I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have increased the memory for the database cache and for each database entry cache. These are the new values: cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the server should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = 4040MB). But when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according to the documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is very far for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots attached). Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? Regards. * http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/memoryusage.html * http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Database_Activity.html * http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Server_Activity.html#tab.Global_Databas e_Cache_Information * http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Server_Activity.html#Monitoring_Server_ Activity-Monitoring_the_Server_from_the_DS_Console -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
Tuning 389 DS
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> Hi > > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have > increased the memory for the database cache and for each database > entry cache. These are the new values: > > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the server > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = 4040MB). But > when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according to the > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is very far > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots attached). > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0 until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather than the database. Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" "objectclass=*" > > Regards. > > * http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/memoryusage.html > * > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Database_Activity.html > * > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Server_Activity.html#tab.Global_Databas e_Cache_Information > * > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/admin/Monitoring_Server_and_Database_Activity-Monitoring_Server_Activity.html#Monitoring_Server_ Activity-Monitoring_the_Server_from_the_DS_Console > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
Tuning 389 DS
2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > Hi > > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have > increased the memory for the database cache and for each database > entry cache. These are the new values: > > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the server > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = 4040MB). But > when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according to the > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is very far > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots attached). > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0 until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather than the database. Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" "objectclass=*" > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. I have done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about 50000 entries. Is this normal? * > Regards. > -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
Tuning 389 DS
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>> > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > Hi > > > > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have > > increased the memory for the database cache and for each database > > entry cache. These are the new values: > > > > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > > > > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > > > > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the > server > > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = > 4040MB). But > > when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the > > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according > to the > > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is > very far > > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots > attached). > > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? > When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0 > until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather > than the database. > > Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" > "objectclass=*" > > > > > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. I have > done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have > also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only > 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about > 50000 entries. Is this normal? We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation. What platform? What 389-ds-base version? 32-bit or 64-bit? > > > > Regards. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
Tuning 389 DS
2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com>
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>> > > * * Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > * * > Hi > * * > > * * > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have > * * > increased the memory for the database cache and for each database > * * > entry cache. These are the new values: > * * > > * * > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > * * > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > * * > > * * > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > * * > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > * * > > * * > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the > * * server > * * > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = > * * 4040MB). But > * * > when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the > * * > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according > * * to the > * * > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is > * * very far > * * > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots > * * attached). > * * > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? > * * When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0 > * * until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather > * * than the database. > > * * Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" > * * "objectclass=*" > * * > > > > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. I have > done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have > also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only > 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about > 50000 entries. Is this normal? We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation. *What platform? *What 389-ds-base version? *32-bit or 64-bit? > All servers are upgraded to 1.2.5 version, under CentOS 5.5 x86 (32 bit). Which is that bug? Is it in Bugzilla? -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
Tuning 389 DS
Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> 2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>> > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > > > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com > <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com> <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com > <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>>> > > > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory > Server. We have > > > increased the memory for the database cache and for each > database > > > entry cache. These are the new values: > > > > > > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > > > > > > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > > > > > > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, > so the > > server > > > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = > > 4040MB). But > > > when I go to the monitoring section of the management > console, the > > > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according > > to the > > > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is > > very far > > > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots > > attached). > > > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? > > When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio > will be 0 > > until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the > cache rather > > than the database. > > > > Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" > > "objectclass=*" > > > > > > > > > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. > I have > > done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have > > also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only > > 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about > > 50000 entries. Is this normal? > We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation. What > platform? What 389-ds-base version? 32-bit or 64-bit? > > > > > All servers are upgraded to 1.2.5 version, under CentOS 5.5 x86 (32 > bit). Which is that bug? Is it in Bugzilla? Not sure, but I seem to recall this problem being fixed (perhaps as part of another bug fix) in 1.2.6. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:47 AM. |
VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.