So previous tuning was
* dbcache 1.3Gb
* 3 backends with 130Mb
How large was it ? How many nsslapd-threadnumber ?
if with caches reduced by 10 times (130Mb, 3* 13Mb) it remains stable
that means there are no leak. But caches are very small. What is the
available memory on the box ?
best regards
Theirry
On 11/16/23 20:19, Harald Strack wrote:
Hi,
caches where in autosizing mode, this seems not to work in our case (?)
grep nsslapd-cache-autosize /etc/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/dse.ldif
nsslapd-cache-autosize: 10
nsslapd-cache-autosize-split: 40
Only when we set
nsslapd-cache-autosize: 0
and reduce all cashes by a factor of about 10 and 100 (see below):
@@ -1521,11 +1521,11 @@
numSubordinates: 4
nsslapd-suffix: cn=changelog
nsslapd-cachesize: -1
-nsslapd-cachememsize: 671088640
+nsslapd-cachememsize: 67108864
nsslapd-readonly: off
nsslapd-require-index: off
nsslapd-directory: /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/db/changelog
-nsslapd-dncachememsize: 134217728
+nsslapd-dncachememsize: 13421772
dn: cn=config,cn=ldbm database,cn=plugins,cn=config
objectClass: top
@@ -1539,7 +1539,7 @@
nsslapd-mode: 600
nsslapd-idlistscanlimit: 4000
nsslapd-directory: /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/db
-nsslapd-dbcachesize: 1342657822
+nsslapd-dbcachesize: 13426578
nsslapd-db-logdirectory: /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/db
nsslapd-db-durable-transaction: on
nsslapd-db-transaction-wait: off
@@ -1586,7 +1586,7 @@
numSubordinates: 4
nsslapd-suffix: o=netscaperoot
nsslapd-cachesize: -1
-nsslapd-cachememsize: 671088640
+nsslapd-cachememsize: 67108864
nsslapd-readonly: off
nsslapd-require-index: off
nsslapd-directory: /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/db/NetscapeRoot
@@ -1600,11 +1600,11 @@
numSubordinates: 10
nsslapd-suffix: dc=fhm,dc=edu
nsslapd-cachesize: -1
-nsslapd-cachememsize: 671088640
+nsslapd-cachememsize: 67108864
nsslapd-readonly: off
nsslapd-require-index: off
nsslapd-directory: /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-ldap1/db/userRoot
-nsslapd-dncachememsize: 134217728
+nsslapd-dncachememsize: 13421772
the memory consumption keeps stable. The machine has 32 GB memory, so
the values prefixed with a minus above should easyly fit.
On 13.11.23 13:22, Thierry Bordaz wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 389 1.3.11-1-3 is the latest version on that branch and is quite
> widely installed. So far we are not informed of memory leaks on that
> release. If cache tuning are reasonable vs available memory and you
> suspect a leak, I would suggest to use valgrind and the suspected
> unindexed search.
>
> best regards
> thierry
>
--
Harald Strack
Geschäftsführer
ssystems GmbH
Kastanienallee 74
10435 Berlin
--
_______________________________________________
389-devel mailing list --389-devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to389-devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
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.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-devel@lists.fe...
Do not reply to spam, report it:https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue