Russ Allbery wrote: > Oren Laadan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Russ Allbery wrote: >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > >>>> Our configuration uses both BDB and META back-ends; as it turns out >>>> the standard debian package of LDAP fails to run with the META >>>> back-end configured (see also complaints here: >>>> http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-bugs/200705/msg00011.html and >>>> here: http://arkiv.netbsd.se/?ml=OpenLDAP-bugs&a=2007-02&t=3076794). > >>> Yeah, we're still trying to figure out the best way to fix that. >>> libtool has some serious problems with how it handles namespaces when >>> dynamically loading modules, and fixing one set of problems creates a >>> separate set of problems. (This particular problem is Debian-specific >>> and not a problem with the upstream OpenLDAP.) >> :( >> >> Well, the good news is that it isn't a show-stopper, and the simple >> workaround is to compile the code from scratch. > > Specifically, the workaround is to compile the code with the upstream > libtool instead of with Debian's libtool, since upstream libtool imports > all module symbols into the global namespace. Debian's libtool has been > modified to not do this because it causes all sorts of other problems in > the general case, but not doing this breaks the meta backend because it > wants to reference symbols from the bdb backend. > > Steve had an ugly hack to work around this by linking the meta backend > against the bdb backend. Doing that isn't the ugly part -- that's > actually formally correct and really is what libtool should be doing in > the first place. The ugly part is that libtool *really* doesn't like > linking against something that doesn't start with lib*. > >> What's really bothering me, is that the system repeatedly and frequently >> hangs with my configuration ... (my users aren't happy with me >> recently). Do you have any idea how to investigate that ? > > Not beyond the standard advice to investigate what the server is doing > during a hang using gdb attach or strace.
done that. couldn't find anything interesting: some threads where waiting in some posix-threads related place (most of them were in thread-join if I recall correctly). as I'm not familiar with ldap implementation, was hard to just dive in without prior knowledge. note that the problems happens becomes more acute when I set the "idle_timeout" to 30 seconds; the system is much more tolerant when it isn't set. > > We have yet to have a chance to do intensive testing of 2.4.7. (Debian > testing really is a testing distribution that doesn't have production > stability.) > I observed the exact same behavior on 2.3.9 (latest stable) that I compiled from scratch; this is actually the reason why I moved to 2.4.7 (hoped it would be better). Is there someone who can work with me on getting to the root cause and hopefully getting it fixed ? Oren.
