Thanks for the update.
I failed to reproduced any significant growth with
groups(100)/members(1000) provisioning. The same with searches on person
returning 1000 person entries (bound as DM). We will wait for your
profiling info.
regards
Theirry
On 4/18/23 18:12, Nazarenko, Alexander wrote:
This is understood, thank you. It is not a big concern for us, as our
servers are at least 16Gb.
We are not using pbkdf2 either.
This is the heap growth above 20Gb (and up) that is the concern, due
to queries like (objectclass=person) hiting the server.
At some point in the near future we plan profile a typical server for
memory usage, and plan to keep posted.
*- Alwes*
*From: *Thierry Bordaz <[email protected]>
*Date: *Tuesday, April 18, 2023 at 11:47 AM
*To: *"General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project."
<[email protected]>, "Nazarenko, Alexander"
<[email protected]>
*Subject: *Re: [389-users] 389 DS memory growth
Hi,
Note that the initial memory footprint of an instance 1.3.11 is larger
that an 1.3.10 one.
On RHEL 7.9 2Gb VM, an instance 1.3.11 is 1Gb while 1.3.10 is 0.5Gb.
Instances have the same DS tuning.
The difference comes from extra chunks of anonymous memory (heap) that
are possibly related to the new rust plugin handling pbkdf2_sha512.
00007ffb0812e000 64328 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb0c000000 1204 1060 1060 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb0c12d000 64332 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb10000000 1028 1028 1028 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb10101000 64508 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb14000000 1020 1020 1020 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb140ff000 64516 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb18000000 1024 1024 1024 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb18100000 64512 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb1c000000 1044 1044 1044 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb1c105000 64492 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb20000000 540 540 540 rw--- [ anon ]
00007ffb20087000 64996 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
00007ffb271ce000 4 0 0 ----- [ anon ]
This is just the initial memory footprint and does not explain regular
growth.
Thanks to progier who raised that point.
regards
thierry
On 4/17/23 03:07, Nazarenko, Alexander wrote:
Hello colleagues,
On March 22nd we updated the 389-ds-base.x86_64 and
389-ds-base-libs.x86_64 packages on our eight RHEL 7.9 production
servers from version 1.3.10.2-17.el7_9 to version
1.3.11.1-1.el7_9. We also updated the kernel from kernel
3.10.0-1160.80.1.el7.x86_64 to kernel-3.10.0-1160.88.1.el7.x86_64
during the same update.
Approximately 12 days later, on April 3rd, all the hosts started
exhibiting memory growth issues whereby the “slapd” process was
using over 90% of the available system memory of 32GB, which was
NOT happening for a couple of years prior to applying any of the
available package updates on the systems.
Two of the eight hosts act as Primaries (formerly referred to as
masters), while 6 of the hosts act as read-only replicas. Three
of the read-only replicas are used by our authorization system
while the other three read-only replicas are used by
customer-based applications.
Currently we use system controls to restrict the memory usage.
My question is whether this is something that other users also
experience, and what is the recommended way to stabilize the DS
servers in this type of situation?
Thanks,
- Alex
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.fedoraproject.org_en-2DUS_project_code-2Dof-2Dconduct_&d=DwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=uiyPR4nhbOiFgJxO8FlFxvLTOA66849EeL0Dl9-gcSY&m=lhlOLw41Ef61rYH2u6A-2OZLJIGjWUJyMvejNbxxpIlCBNzk8EkZ_ZDJ-b16xD6B&s=vA-Y0-9EUfql9PZclFkEUQNYQWbXzkK_wckNoCsb-Rs&e=>
List Guidelines:https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__fedoraproject.org_wiki_Mailing-5Flist-5Fguidelines&d=DwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=uiyPR4nhbOiFgJxO8FlFxvLTOA66849EeL0Dl9-gcSY&m=lhlOLw41Ef61rYH2u6A-2OZLJIGjWUJyMvejNbxxpIlCBNzk8EkZ_ZDJ-b16xD6B&s=2Q_fo7HDWuMCaznM6X-ZFtOxykQo_10PZVZX4FGds3k&e=>
List Archives:https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.fedoraproject.org_archives_list_389-2Dusers-40lists.fedoraproject.org&d=DwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=uiyPR4nhbOiFgJxO8FlFxvLTOA66849EeL0Dl9-gcSY&m=lhlOLw41Ef61rYH2u6A-2OZLJIGjWUJyMvejNbxxpIlCBNzk8EkZ_ZDJ-b16xD6B&s=IAJEMJXS6iY8Zy8s59ThNT9cCsKLvelobO7aDShm-EY&e=>
Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__pagure.io_fedora-2Dinfrastructure_new-5Fissue&d=DwMDaQ&c=WO-RGvefibhHBZq3fL85hQ&r=uiyPR4nhbOiFgJxO8FlFxvLTOA66849EeL0Dl9-gcSY&m=lhlOLw41Ef61rYH2u6A-2OZLJIGjWUJyMvejNbxxpIlCBNzk8EkZ_ZDJ-b16xD6B&s=XiecP4NfR2TV4r64x1e-H1jn4vfDA6V2Bd2syZxuVxk&e=>
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
