On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:57:23AM +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote: > Op Vrijdag, 08-12-2017 om 11:34 schreef Sumit Bose: > > On Fri, Dec 08, 2017 at 11:10:49AM +0100, Franky Van Liedekerke wrote: > > > Before opening a bug report, I wanted to discuss a new issue here. > > > > > > I have ldap users that are in 1500 groups (yeah, I know ... not my choice > > > either), ldap is using rfc2307 scheme (openldap, redhat EL7). > > > Now, when connecting sssd to this ldap server, I've already set > > > enumeration=false, and also ignore_group_members=true (performance ...). > > > However, with ignore_group_members=true, I'm getting this in the > > > sssd_nss.log when doing a 'groups <userid>" command: > > > > > > [sssd[nss]] [sss_mc_find_record] (0x0010): Corrupted fastcache. name_ptr > > > value is 16 > > > > > > (once when the cache is empty, and after that once or twice per > > > groups-request). > > > I also see this in /var/log/messages (related of course): > > > > > > sssd[nss]: Stored copy of corrupted mmap cache in file > > > '/var/lib/sss/mc/group_corrupted#012' > > > > > > As a result, this prevents the use of the sssd fast cache, so group > > > requests at best take 5.5 seconds. > > > Now this problem happens 95% of the cases (which leads me to believe it > > > is a timing bug), but when I set ignore_group_members=false, this is not > > > happening (and when groups are ok in the fast cache: 0,03 secs response > > > time). > > > > > > Ideas? Hints? Or should I just go and open a bug report? Is there a real > > > performance drawback to setting ignore_group_members=false? > > > > There is already a BZ > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490120. > > > > I think in your setup (plain LDAP with rfc2307) the performance loss > > when using ignore_group_members=false (the default) should be > > acceptable. > > > > bye, > > Sumit > > Unfortunately I can't view the content of that BZ (no access, I'm searching > for an account at my current company that does), so any insight/summary on > that one would be appreciated.
Here is the related upstream ticket https://pagure.io/SSSD/sssd/issue/3571. > Fun fact just for info: we had to switch to rfc2307 (from 2307bis) because of > another bug in sssd that ignores the setting to not do nested group searches, > which resulted in a huge amount of extra ldap searches per user (1 per group). Did you open a ticket about this? bye, Sumit > > Franky > _______________________________________________ > sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] _______________________________________________ sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
