[389-users] DS performance settings while multi-mastering

[Rich Megginson]

On 02/21/2013 11:11 AM, Patrick Raspante wrote:
> I was mostly curious if the difference in cache configurations has any 
> negative effect on the integrity of the replication agreement between 
> the directory instances.
>
> To illustrate, say one directory instance is managing several root 
> suffixes and has increased cache settings. The other instance has 
> default settings. The default instance is perfectly capable of 
> operating on the replicated data-set and/or doesn't have the 
> performance requirements of the other instance.

It depends where your requests are going.  If all of your servers have 
an equal request load, then it makes sense to have the same cache 
settings on all of your servers.

But I strongly encourage you to use the tool below to monitor your 
usage.  Depending on your platform, how much RAM you have, how many 
entries you have, etc.  you may need to decrease your cache settings to 
save RAM, or increase to cache more entries.  To emphasize what David 
Boreham said, if you can easily cache everything in RAM, in db cache and 
entry/dn caches, then that will give you the very best performance.  
Otherwise, better to let the OS file system cache work for you.

>
> Thanks,
> Patrick
>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Rich Megginson <rmeggins at redhat.com 
> <mailto:rmeggins at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/21/2013 08:27 AM, Patrick Raspante wrote:
>>     Is it required (or at least suggested) that multi-mastered
>>     directory server instances have the equal values for dbcache and
>>     entry cache settings? If so, what adverse effects result from not
>>     configuring the caches similarly?
>
>     There is a tool which you can use to monitor the caches:
>
>     https://github.com/richm/scripts/wiki/dbmon.sh
>     https://github.com/richm/scripts/blob/master/dbmon.sh
>
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>     pwr
>>
>>
>>
>>     --
>>     389 users mailing list
>>     389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org  <mailto:389-users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>     https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/389-users/attachments/20130221/7ebaade6/attachment.html>