FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Directory

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 08-02-2010, 08:40 AM
Juan Asensio Sánchez
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-02-2010, 06:04 PM
Rich Megginson
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-03-2010, 08:07 AM
Juan Asensio Sánchez
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-03-2010, 05:14 PM
Rich Megginson
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-03-2010, 06:35 PM
Juan Asensio Sánchez
 
Default 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
 
Old 08-03-2010, 08:49 PM
Rich Megginson
 
Default 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:01 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org