Your message dated Fri, 8 Aug 2014 12:59:46 -0700
with message-id
<CAMXH3QDeLjN5xsd-nJUhn5WLHOs+_6dBBqUbEPg5V5wnxrjE=q...@mail.gmail.com>
and subject line Re: failures under load with slapd in wheezy
has caused the Debian Bug report #731795,
regarding failures under load with slapd in wheezy
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
731795: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=731795
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: slapd
Version: 2.4.31-1+nmu2
Placing the slapd server under load, at somewhere between 512 and 1024
simultaneous connections (using TLS, may be higher unencrypted), you
will end up see variations of:
"ldap_sasl_bind(SIMPLE): Can't contact LDAP server (-1)"
Under simple tests, I've seen these occur for anywhere between 5 and 50%
of the connection attempts.
I have been able to replicate this on systems ranging from a VM with
256M of ram to an 8GB physical server to a 24GB 12 CPU system (2
physical, 6 cores each), and it all fails in the same range of connections.
Recommendation:
Upgrade to slapd-2.4.38 in jessie and wheezy-backports.
According to the openldap changelogs
(http://www.openldap.org/software/release/changes.html), the following
fix was included in openldap 2.4.32:
"Fixed slapd-bdb/hdb cache hang under high load (ITS#7222)"
I downloaded and compiled openldap 2.4.38 on a 256MB VM system, using
the same configuration options Debian uses. Under current tests, it has
survived over 16k connections without any errors. This is a factor of
4, and still going.
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 2.4.39-1
On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 12:27 PM, John Jasen <[email protected]> wrote:
> In other words, I believe an update to 2.4.39 resolved the specific
> issue I encountered.
Thanks very much for taking the time to spin up your test environment
again and confirm that. Based on that, marking this bug as done.
cheers,
Ryan
--- End Message ---
