[389-users] Tuning 389 DS

[Rich Megginson]

Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> 2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>>
>
>     Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
>     >
>     > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com
>     <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com> <mailto: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? \
Not sure, but I seem to recall this problem being fixed (perhaps as part 
of another bug fix) in 1.2.6.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users