[389-users] largish member changes causing problems
Rich Megginson
rmeggins at redhat.com
Wed Mar 28 01:25:50 UTC 2012
On 03/27/2012 07:14 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
> earlier in the log (sorry, i didn't look there) I see
>
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511, procpages: 55220
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache 410416KB, the available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB. You may want to decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - changelog: Start upgrade dn format.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance changelog in /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/changelog is up-to-date
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511, procpages: 55220
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache 410416KB, the available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB. You may want to decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - NetscapeRoot: Start upgrade dn format.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance NetscapeRoot in /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/NetscapeRoot is up-to-date
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - check_and_set_import_cache: pagesize: 4096, pages: 256511, procpages: 55219[27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - WARNING: After allocating import cache 410416KB, the available memory is 615628KB, which is less than the soft limit 1048576KB. You may want to decrease the import cache size and rerun import.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] - Import allocates 410416KB import cache. [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - userRoot: Start upgrade dn format.
> [27/Mar/2012:20:19:50 -0400] Upgrade DN Format - Instance userRoot in /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/userRoot is up-to-date
>
> and
>
> find /var/lib/dirsrv -name DBVERSION -exec cat {} \;
> bdb/4.3/libreplication-plugin
> bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
> bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
> bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
> bdb/4.3/libback-ldbm/newidl/rdn-format-2/dn-4514
>
> yes, i did upgrade from 1.2.9.9
hmm - looks like the entryrdn conversion was missed - try this:
dbscan -f
/var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/userRoot/entryrdn.db4 | head
and
/var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-cmu/db/userRoot/entryrdn.db4 | tail
>
> /mrg
>
> On Mar 27, 2012, at 21:05, Rich Megginson wrote:
>
>> On 03/27/2012 06:58 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>> I have upgraded one of my masters to 1.2.10.3 and i see the following
>>>
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - 389-Directory/1.2.10.3 B2012.065.2248 starting up
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - libdb: DB handle previously used in transaction, missing transaction handle
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - slapd started. Listening on All Interfaces port 389 for LDAP requests
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - Listening on All Interfaces port 636 for LDAPS requests
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:30:04 -0400] NSMMReplicationPlugin - changelog program - cl5DBData2Entry: invalid data version
>>> [27/Mar/2012:20:30:04 -0400] NSMMReplicationPlugin - changelog program - cl5DBData2Entry: invalid data version
>>>
>>> is this serious?
>>> I had to do an offline 'setup-ds-admin.pl -u' because i have everything as SSL and the online update doesn't seem to handle this case very well (i offer this info as i have no idea if it is relevant to the problem).
>> What should have happened is that during yum/rpm upgrade of the 389-ds-base package, it should have upgraded the database to the latest version. Did you upgrade from 1.2.9.9?
>>
>> find /var/lib/dirsrv -name DBVERSION -exec cat {} \;
>>
>> before
>>
>> [27/Mar/2012:20:25:04 -0400] - 389-Directory/1.2.10.3 B2012.065.2248 starting up
>>
>> you should have some messages about the database being upgraded
>>> the only error in the setup was
>>>
>>> [12/03/27:20:20:09] - [Setup] Warning Error: command 'getsebool httpd_can_connect_ldap' failed - output [getsebool: SELinux is disabled] error []
>> If you are really running with SELinux disabled, then this is just telling you that it couldn't perform some SELinux function because it is disabled, which is ok.
>>> 389-admin.x86_64 1.1.28-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-admin-console.noarch 1.1.8-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-admin-console-doc.noarch 1.1.8-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-adminutil.x86_64 1.1.15-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-console.noarch 1.1.7-3.el5 installed
>>> 389-ds.noarch 1.2.1-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-ds-base.x86_64 1.2.10.3-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-ds-base-libs.x86_64 1.2.10.3-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-ds-console.noarch 1.2.6-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-ds-console-doc.noarch 1.2.6-1.el5 installed
>>> 389-dsgw.x86_64 1.1.9-1.el5 installed
>>>
>>> advice appreciated.
>>>
>>> /mrg
>>>
>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 10:03, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 03/27/2012 08:01 AM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>>>> I just checked and only 1.2.10.3-1.el5 is in the epel-testing repo
>>>> 1.2.10.3 should be fine as long as you don't use compare operations on virtual attributes.
>>>> I just pushed 1.2.10.4 to epel-testing - it should show up in the mirrors in a couple of days.
>>>>> /mrg
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:50, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I judge from your questions this is not a known problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /mrg
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mar 27, 2012, at 9:17, Rich Megginson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 03/26/2012 08:25 PM, Michael R. Gettes wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am a little perplexed.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am making a change to a groupOfNames object having some 16069 member attributes. I am deleting nearly 16000 members and then adding nearly 16000 members. CPU goes to 100% and never comes down. I have plenty of memory allocated (700MB) to nss-slapd and I have made the adjustments to allow for large objects (maxbersize). I end up having to kill -9 slapd. the annoying thing is some times it works, some times it doesn't. I can't seem to find any common conditions of the failures (or successes).
>>>>>>> Are you using replication? If so, do you see the high CPU usage on the master or on the replica?
>>>>>>> Are you able to reproduce with 389-ds-base-1.2.10.4-1 in epel-testing?
>>>>>>>> ds = 1.2.9.9
>>>>>>>> RHEL = 5.7
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>> --
>>> 389 users mailing list
>>> 389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org
>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
More information about the 389-users
mailing list