[Freeipa-users] 2.20 dirsrv memory usage

[Stephen Ingram]

On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 11:48 AM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Rich Megginson<rmeggins at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 07/16/2012 10:19 AM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Rob Crittenden<rcritten at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen Ingram wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Steven Jones<Steven.Jones at vuw.ac.nz>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I had huge memory issues pre 6.3, now its low and flat....Sounds like
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> have an issue somewhere. My normal cpu use is a few hundred
>>>>>>> mhz....but
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> "something" goes wrong such as replication failing that
>>>>>>> climbs...ditto
>>>>>>> memory use....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I saw your conversation with Rich on this list about that. And,
>>>>>> yes, 6.2 (2.1.3) was bad for me too. I'm not sure why 2.2.0 is still
>>>>>> having issues. It was an upgrade from 2.1.3, but the upgrade seemed to
>>>>>> complete without issue. I'm also not even doing replication yet so I'm
>>>>>> not sure why memory is so high. Web interface is much slower too so
>>>>>> perhaps something else is wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you tell where it is being slow? Does it seem related to retrieving
>>>>> data
>>>>> from LDAP?
>>>>
>>>> I'm not really sure yet what is causing the slowness. I have the same
>>>> number of directory entries as before the upgrade. It was very quick
>>>> with 2.1.3, but once I upgraded, I felt like I was back to the pre-2.0
>>>> days--without a doubt much, much slower.
>>>>
>>>>> You might check your 389-ds access logs and look for searches with
>>>>> notes=U.
>>>>> Perhaps you are missing an index.
>>>>
>>>> Yes there are lots of notes=U. What does this mean? Was something
>>>> missed in the upgrade script?
>>>
>>> Try running logconv.pl
>>
>> Nice! I'm guessing that notes=U are unindexed searches then. I have 34
>> over the last 24 hours so I'm not sure this would be causing the issue
>> as the slowness persists through every click.
>
> Yeah, I would expect to see a lot more than 34 if that were the cause.
>
> Can you post the search filters that are unindexed?

Sure, here's a partial list (sanitized):

filter="(managedBy=fqdn=ec2-x.x.x.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com)
attrs="fqdn"
filter="(managedBy=fqdn=imap.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com)"
attrs="fqdn"
filter="(managedBy=fqdn=imap1.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com)"
attrs="fqdn"
filter="(managedBy=fqdn=imap2.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com)"
attrs="fqdn"
filter="(managedBy=fqdn=ipa1.example.com,cn=computers,cn=accounts,dc=example,dc=com)"
attrs="fqdn"

All the rest are the same, just with different hosts.

>> I've traced the
>> unindexed searches back to the time of Web UI access and they don't
>> match. I also don't see any other obvious errors when running
>> logconv.pl.
>>
>> One strange thing I have noticed is that the 389 server logs seem to
>> update in "spurts". If I'm tailing the logs while I access a Web UI
>> page, there is nothing, then a couple of seconds later, I see the logs
>> quickly scroll with new entires. Has this always been the case? I
>> don't seem to remember this before.
>
> Yes.  The 389 access log is buffered, for performance reasons.

Just thought it might be relevant. I'm not sure what is causing the
extreme slowness. I've also shut off memcached and tried without it
with no discernible difference. The directory seems to be handling the
load of external queries just fine, although I'm not sure I've solved
the memory issue--I'm still testing with the compat plugin disabled to
see if I can stop the memory creep. Maybe it's something in the code
of the Web UI itself as its even slow when changing from page to page
of users and hosts.

Steve