[389-users] Finger slow and optimizing performance
Rich Megginson
rmeggins at redhat.com
Fri Jun 26 14:20:57 UTC 2009
Andrey Ivanov wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> There may be several attributes of interest to you as far as the
> memory consumption is concerned
> (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/cli/Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Plug_in_Implemented_Server_Functionality_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes.html)
> :
> nsslapd-dbcachesize
> nsslapd-cachememsize for every backend (by default, your data is in
> cn=userRoot,cn=ldbm database,cn=plugins,cn=config)
> nsslapd-import-cachesize (used only during ldif import)
Start with nsslapd-cachememsize - make that as large as possible and
minimize nsslapd-dbcachesize
>
> You can adjust the corresponding values by monitoring the attributes
> like currententrycachesize or entrycachehitratio of
> cn=monitor,cn=userRoot,cn=ldbm database,cn=plugins,cn=config
> (http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/dir-server/8.1/cli/Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Plug_in_Implemented_Server_Functionality_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes.html#Configuration_Command_File_Reference-Database_Plug_in_Attributes-Database_Attributes_under_cnmonitor_cnldbm_database_cnplugins_cnconfig)
>
You can also use the logconv.pl script to examine the access log to see
what types of searches are being done and which are not indexed properly.
>
>
> 2009/6/26 Tim Hartmann <hartmann at fas.harvard.edu
> <mailto:hartmann at fas.harvard.edu>>
>
> Hi!
>
>
> I was spending some time today trying to make sure that I was
> getting the most bang for my buck today an my replica's and I
> notices two items of interest that I was wondering if anyone else
> had input on!
>
> Firstly, after creating a number of indexs, my performance seems
> to be really good, the exception that I noticed was "finger" I
> noticed that finger takes a couple of seconds to return the data
> on RHDS whereas on OpenLDAP, it pops right now in real time! My
> first though was that I was doing an un-indexed search, but I
> can't for the life of me figure out what I might not be indexing
> that I should be!
>
> The second thing I noticed was that on my servers, which are
> RHEL5, running 32bit OS's with the PAE Kernels, RHDS doesn't ever
> actually address more then 3 gig of ram! I was looking through the
> documentations, and it looks like by raising the "Maximum Cache
> Size" I'll be able to allow RHDS to use more of the available
> memory.. did I get that right?
>
>
> Anyway, as always thanks in advance for all the help! This list
> has been a tremendous resource for an application that keeps on
> showing it's value in huge ways!
>
>
> Best,
>
> Tim
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at redhat.com <mailto:389-users at redhat.com>
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-directory-users
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3258 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-directory-users/attachments/20090626/517f1704/attachment.bin>
More information about the Fedora-directory-users
mailing list