On 07/16/2012 11:48 AM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 9:35 AM, Rich Megginson<rmegg...@redhat.com>  wrote:
On 07/16/2012 10:19 AM, Stephen Ingram wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:14 AM, Rob Crittenden<rcrit...@redhat.com>
wrote:
Stephen Ingram wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Steven Jones<steven.jo...@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?

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.

Steve

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

Reply via email to