On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 11:54 -0900, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 11:40 AM, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 12:53:29PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-01-02 at 17:29 +0100, Jakub Hrozek wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:00:02AM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 2011-12-31 at 01:35 -0900, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote:
> >>>>> On 12/30/2011 07:19 PM, JR Aquino wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Dec 30, 2011, at 5:45 PM, Erinn Looney-Triggs wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I have been slowly rolling out FreeIPA to my systems, trying to track
> >>>>>>> differences/changes. One of the most noticeable has been a large slow
> >>>>>>> down in file access times.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Let me explain as best as I can. I use AIDE to track the file system
> >>>>>>> (think tripwire) and it runs checks once a day. During these checks it
> >>>>>>> is scanning (almost) the entire file system and comparing it to a 
> >>>>>>> stored
> >>>>>>> database. On a moderately powered system with ~151k files, an AIDE run
> >>>>>>> will usually take ~30 minutes. After the system becomes an IPA client
> >>>>>>> the same run will generally take ~90-120 minutes. Un-install the
> >>>>>>> ipa-client, back to ~30 minutes for an AIDE run.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now clearly a lot of lookups are being done for user names and group
> >>>>>>> names, and this will have a performance hit that is dependant on the
> >>>>>>> network. However, the odd thing is that even when running on the IPA
> >>>>>>> server itself the slowdown is still the same.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Not sure if this is an IPA problem, an SSSD problem, a bit of both, or
> >>>>>>> neither, perhaps it is just the way it is, but a slowdown of 3-4x 
> >>>>>>> seems
> >>>>>>> a bit much to me. Clearly the results are not scientific, however, 
> >>>>>>> they
> >>>>>>> have been generally reproducible since I started rolling IPA out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As a side note this slowdown has also broken bacula backups, as the
> >>>>>>> bacula client is scanning the filesystem for change (using accurate
> >>>>>>> backups) the director times out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Any thoughts, or opinions? Workarounds etc? I have checked to make 
> >>>>>>> sure
> >>>>>>> that SSSD caching is enabled, and functional.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -Erinn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am assuming that these are all running as local users.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> From the sssd.conf man page in the nss section:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> filter_users, filter_groups (string)
> >>>>>>            Exclude certain users from being fetched from the sss NSS 
> >>>>>> database. This is particularly useful for system accounts. This option 
> >>>>>> can also be set per-domain or include fully-qualified names to filter 
> >>>>>> only users from the
> >>>>>>            particular domain.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>            Default: root
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Try adding this to your sssd.conf:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [nss]
> >>>>>>            filter_groups = root,bacula,aide,otherdaemonuser <-as needed
> >>>>>>            filter_users = root,bacula,aide,otherdaemonuser <- as needed
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Let me know if that solves your issue.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for pointing that out, completely missed that option! Wouldn't it
> >>>>> be sweet to have an option that say looked at /etc/login.defs and just
> >>>>> didn't lookup anything under MIN_UID, on the assumption that those are
> >>>>> system accounts? Certainly would stop a lot of lookups I imagine.
> >>>>
> >>>> We already have range options (min_id/max_id), but unfortunately that
> >>>> doesn't help when an application asks for information by name.
> >>>> You either permanently blacklist such name or you have to do the lookup
> >>>> and then find out it either a) does not exist, or b) it has to be
> >>>> filtered out.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Of course you would have to leave it as an option and probably default
> >>>>> it to off given the odd things people do with their systems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Indeed sssd used to enforce a min id range of 1000 and we turned it off
> >>>> in the default configuration due to issues with weird configurations.
> >>>>
> >>>> Can you try using both min_id and filter_users and see if it makes any
> >>>> difference in your case ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Simo.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Even when performing getpwuid() calls, SSSD first looks up the user
> >>> information, reads the UID LDAP attribute and then checks the UID value
> >>> from LDAP against min_id/max_id values.
> >>
> >> Not according to my reading of the sources, if you look into
> >> nss_cmd_getpwuid_search() you'll see that we proceed only if we first
> >> pass the min_id/max_id range check, otherwise we return ENOENT.
> >>
> >> Simo.
> > 
> > Sorry, you're right and I need to warm up my brain a little more after
> > the Christmas break.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> 
> I am going through some testing now to try and get you folks something
> more definitive. However, from an early test adding users/groups to
> filter_* seemed to reduce the performance hit slightly, but it did not
> take it anywhere near the levels it was at before sssd was in place.
> 
> Like I said I will continue to test and get you folks some more
> definitive results, probably later today. Thanks for all the info and
> feedback.

Hi Erinn,
can you please tell what's the baseline you are comparing against ?

Is it nss_ldap ? With or without nscd ?

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-users mailing list
Freeipa-users@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-users

Reply via email to