On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:46 PM Sanjay Agrawal <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Thanks for response. I re-ran test after adding index as suggested. Which
> seems to fix the underlying issue and results are inline with older
> version. So will this index would be added in newer version of sssd ?
>

I opened an upstream issue to track this:
https://github.com/SSSD/sssd/issues/5430

Looking at the package name in the subject, I guess you are a RHEL user.
If you need this fix in a RHEL, please open a customer case or bugzilla
ticket.



> Is there an easier way to add this index w/o opening an editor ?
>
>
> older version
> sssd-20201203163147/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 102 avg:
> 0.596225137254902 median 0.035176 min: 0.001218 max: 22.037332
> sssd-20201203164328/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 201 avg:
> 0.313984855721393 median 0.039057 min: 0.000394 max: 23.138423
> sssd-20201203165234/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 100 avg:
> 0.59339562 median 0.0362155 min: 0.000412 max: 21.559991
>
> With new version + adding index as suggested above.
> sssd-20201203145950/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 103 avg:
> 0.5026502815533981 median 0.03847 min: 0.000435 max: 21.532709
> sssd-20201203152524/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 90 avg:
> 1.1182167555555556 median 0.0349585 min: 0.000536 max: 33.604103
> sssd-20201203160837/analysis.out:'Initgroups by name' count: 102 avg:
> 0.4324193431372549 median 0.0338985 min: 0.000479 max: 19.493188
>
> Above output is by parsing the sssd_nss.log with debug_level 9. As you can
> see from both older/newer versions, we are seeing a very high max value.
> All these are when request is being sent from nss->be for resolution. Is is
> possible similar issue is happening at BE side as well when updating ldb ?
> Please let me know, if you need additional data.
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Sanjay Agrawal
>
>
> On Thursday, December 3, 2020, 01:32:32 PM EST, Sumit Bose <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 03, 2020 at 05:50:31PM +0000, Sanjay Agrawal wrote:
> > resending
> > Sanjay Agrawal
> >
> >    On Wednesday, December 2, 2020, 03:41:36 PM EST, Sanjay Agrawal <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi,Â
> >
> > we are seeing an issue with newer version of sssd with centos 7.9 sssd
> version 1.16.5-10.el7_9.5.x86_64, where Initgroups is taking much longer
> compared to
> > previous version. Can you please look into it. Following are details,
> including a sample program to reproduce the issue with old and new version.
> >
> > Sample Program: get_user_groups.py
> > Â  Â  - it just call getgrouplist of a user supplied using libc
> >
> > Old env -
> > OS Linux 3.10.0-1127.19.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Aug 26 11:48:49 BST 2020
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > SSSD Version    - 1.16.4-37.el7_8.4.x86_64
> > Sample log file - sssd_nss-old.log
> > Flamegraph      - flamgraph_sssd_nss-old.svg
> > ID Â 879 'Initgroups by name' testuser1@example
> >     starttime Tue Dec  1 18:36:42:092541 2020
> >     endtime Tue Dec  1 18:36:42:124463 2020
> > Â  Â  lookup_time 0.031922 sec
> >
> > New env
> > OS Linux 3.10.0-1160.6.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Nov 18 22:40:48 GMT 2020
> x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
> > SSSD Version    - 1.16.5-10.el7_9.5.x86_64
> > Sample log file - sssd_nss-new.log
> > Flamegraph      - flamgraph_sssd_nss-new.svg
> > ID Â 776 'Initgroups by name' testuser1@example
> > Â  Â  starttime 2020-12-01 17:31:24:328419
> > Â  Â  endtime 2020-12-01 17:31:24:451778
> > Â  Â  lookup_time 0.123359 sec
> >
> >
> > It seem to be due to addtional .1 second taken during following two
> trace (from sssd_nss-new.log)
> > (2020-12-01 17:31:24:355458): [nss] [cache_req_done] (0x0400): CR #776:
> Finished: Success
> > (2020-12-01 17:31:24:451727): [nss] [sysdb_search_group_by_id] (0x0400):
> No such entry
> > (2020-12-01 17:31:24:451757): [nss] [nss_protocol_fill_initgr] (0x0080):
> Unable to find primary gid [2]: No such file or directory
> >
> > It may be related to following change, which seems to ref to
> sysdb_search_group_by_id
> > nss: use real primary gid if the value is overriden · SSSD/sssd@80e6f71
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for the analysis and I guess you might be right. The patch adds a
> search where one attribute in the filter does not have an index. As a
> result the search has to run over the whole cache.
>
> I wonder if you would like to try to add such index? To do this please
> stop SSSD and call:
>
>     ldbedit -H /var/lib/sss/db/cache_YOUR.DOMAIN.NAME.ldb -s base -b
> '@INDEXLIST'
>
> which should open an editor showing something similar to
>
>
> # editing 1 records
> # record 1
> dn: @INDEXLIST
> @IDXATTR: cn
> @IDXATTR: objectclass
> @IDXATTR: member
> @IDXATTR: memberof
> @IDXATTR: name
> @IDXATTR: uidNumber
> @IDXATTR: gidNumber
> @IDXATTR: lastUpdate
> @IDXATTR: dataExpireTimestamp
> @IDXATTR: originalDN
> @IDXATTR: nameAlias
> @IDXATTR: servicePort
> @IDXATTR: serviceProtocol
> @IDXATTR: sudoUser
> @IDXATTR: sshKnownHostsExpire
> @IDXATTR: objectSIDString
> @IDXATTR: ghost
> @IDXATTR: userPrincipalName
> @IDXATTR: canonicalUserPrincipalName
> @IDXATTR: uniqueID
> @IDXATTR: mail
> @IDXATTR: userMappedCertificate
> @IDXATTR: ccacheFile
> @IDXATTR: ipHostNumber
> @IDXATTR: ipNetworkNumber
> distinguishedName: @INDEXLIST
>
>
> Please add in the @IDXATTR list a line
>
>     @IDXATTR: originalADgidNumber
>
> and exit the editor, the databased will be reindexed at this point.
> Finally start SSSD again and rerun the test.
>
> HTH
>
> bye,
> Sumit
>
> >
> > |
> > |
> > |
> > |  |  |
> >
> >  |
> >
> >  |
> > |
> > |  |
> > nss: use real primary gid if the value is overriden · SSSD/sssd@80e6f71
>
> >
> > SYSDB_PRIMARY_GROUP_GIDNUM contains original primary group id from AD
> because any possible override may not be k...
> >  |
> >
> >  |
> >
> >  |
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Sanjay Agrawal
>
>
> > _______________________________________________
> > sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> > Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> > List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
>
> _______________________________________________
> sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
> Fedora Code of Conduct:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
sssd-users mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/[email protected]

Reply via email to