[389-users] Tuning 389 DS

[Juan Asensio Sánchez]

2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com>

> Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> >
> > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com
> >>
> >
> >     Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> >     > Hi
> >     >
> >     > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We
> have
> >     > increased the memory for the database cache and for each database
> >     > entry cache. These are the new values:
> >     >
> >     > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
> >     > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB)
> >     >
> >     > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
> >     > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB)
> >     >
> >     > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the
> >     server
> >     > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 =
> >     4040MB). But
> >     > when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the
> >     > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according
> >     to the
> >     > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is
> >     very far
> >     > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots
> >     attached).
> >     > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct?
> >     When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0
> >     until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather
> >     than the database.
> >
> >     Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase"
> >     "objectclass=*"
> >     >
> >
> >
> > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. I have
> > done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have
> > also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only
> > 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about
> > 50000 entries. Is this normal?
> We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation.  What
> platform?  What 389-ds-base version?  32-bit or 64-bit?
> >
>

All servers are upgraded to 1.2.5 version, under CentOS 5.5 x86 (32 bit).
Which is that bug? Is it in Bugzilla?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20100803/17033d2c/attachment.html>