On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 7:01 PM Spike White <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> So the idea to turn on debug_level = 9 on the client and view the logs was 
> inspired.  We turned on debug level 9 on 4 clients;
>
> 2 in the list (that we got from AD team of servers in that AMERAustin site 
> hitting the non-AMER Austin AD DCs).
> 2 not in their list.  (1 in another AMER site).
>
> Consistently, we see them querying the rootDSE for all these domains on the 
> hour and the half-hour.  Querying the local AMER rootDSE in Austin is not a 
> problem;  they have beaucoup AD DCs in Austin.  Querying the other domains' 
> rootDSEs in Austin is a problem;  they typically only have 2 AD DCs from each 
> region.
>
> Here’s an example from the client logs.  First client:
>
>
>
> (2023-10-03  0:30:06): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x1000): New LDAP connection to [ldap://ausdc16corp05.corp.com:389/??base] 
> with fd [30].
>
> (2023-10-03  0:30:06): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> Getting rootdse
>
> …
>
> (2023-10-03  0:41:18): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x1000): New LDAP connection to 
> [ldap://AUSDC16ROAMER01.amer.corp.com:389/??base] with fd [20].
>
> (2023-10-03  0:41:18): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> Getting rootdse
>
>
>
> Another client:
>
>
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:02): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x4000): [RID#48] New connection to 
> [ldap://ausdc16amer33.amer.corp.com:3268/??base] with fd [25]
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:02): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> [RID#48] Getting rootdse
>

What goes next for this 'RID#48', after 'rootdse' is read?

SSSD doesn't query 'rootdse' on its own. It is being read (as a first
operation) when a new connection is established.
You need to see what happens next to figure out *why* this new
connection is established.

As a practical side note, you can also increase
`ldap_connection_expire_timeout` to keep connections longer.
But I would figure out the reason first.


> --
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:04): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x4000): [RID#49] New connection to 
> [ldap://ausdc16emea05.emea.corp.com:389/??base] with fd [26]
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:04): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> [RID#49] Getting rootdse
>
> --
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:05): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x4000): [RID#50] New connection to 
> [ldap://ausdc16apac06.apac.corp.com:389/??base] with fd [27]
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:05): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> [RID#50] Getting rootdse
>
> --
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:05): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x4000): [RID#51] New connection to 
> [ldap://AUSDC16JAPN02.japn.corp.com:389/??base] with fd [28]
>
> (2023-10-02 11:30:05): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> [RID#51] Getting rootdse
>
> --
>
> (2023-10-02 11:32:52): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_ldap_connect_callback_add] 
> (0x4000): [RID#84] New connection to 
> [ldap://ausdc16emea05.emea.corp.com:389/??base] with fd [26]
>
> (2023-10-02 11:32:52): [be[amer.corp.com]] [sdap_get_rootdse_send] (0x4000): 
> [RID#84] Getting rootdse
>
> --
>
>
>
> BTW, this seems to occurs on both RHEL7 and RHEL8.  (Haven't looked at our 
> RHEL9 builds yet).   It's occurring on all servers to all rootDSEs, but only 
> a problem for AMERAustin, since Austin is such a heavily-populated.
>
>
> These rootDSEs change almost never.  Any way to have it query not as 
> frequently, or randomize when servers query these rootDSEs.
>
>
> Spike
>
> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 2:37 AM Alexey Tikhonov <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 2, 2023 at 6:20 AM Spike White <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> Is there anything in sssd's RHEL and RHEL-like Linux server OS settings 
>>> that perform LDAP binds or connections to AD every 30 minutes?
>>>
>>> What our AD team is seeing is all of the DCs in our biggest AMER AD site 
>>> peak with LDAP sessions for about 10 minutes at the top of the hour then 
>>> again at the bottom of the hour.  No other AD site in the world appears to 
>>> see this behavior not even other AD sites in this metro area.
>>>
>>> The reason they noticed is that our non-amer DCs in this biggest AD site 
>>> hit their 5k LDAP client session limit during those 10 minutes every 30 
>>> minutes.  Meaning any clients attempting to establish a LDAP session past 
>>> 5000 are dropped by the DC.  In their research they see thousands LDAP 
>>> Binds by RHEL Linux servers against two specific non-AMER AD DCs in a short 
>>> period of time after digging through some LDAP log samples that they pulled 
>>> from these DCs.
>>
>>
>> Can they also say what operations are being performed by those connections?
>> Or can you check SSSD logs on the client side?
>>
>> I wonder if this could be `ldap_sudo_smart_refresh_interval`...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this major AD sites, we have dozens and dozens of AMER AD DCs.  So 
>>> there's enough preferred AD DCs to spread the load.  But typically for the 
>>> non-AMER regions, the AD team puts 2 of each regions DCs in a site.  For 
>>> instance, for APAC they would be put two APAC DCs in this AMER major site.  
>>> Thus all AMER RHEL servers in this site would randomly hit dozens of AMER 
>>> DCs, but concentrate on these two preferred APAC DCs.  (preferred because 
>>> they're in this locatiion).
>>>
>>> I know our older AD integration product used to hit AD every 30 mins to 
>>> check GPOs, but we're not implementing GPOs with sssd.
>>>
>>> Spike
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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]
>>> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
>>> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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]
>> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
>> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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]
> Do not reply to spam, report it: 
> https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________
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]
Do not reply to spam, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Reply via email to