I don't know what this would change.
But I think your graph looks like there is a memory leak, could you open
a ticket a try to describe how to reproduce, it would be helpful to get
the config and evtl logs, at least a description of the workload.
Does this problem occur with the latest release ?
Regards,
Ludwig
Moses
2012/11/26 Moisés Barba Pérez <mbarperoi(a)gmail.com
<mailto:mbarperoi@gmail.com>>
Hi,
This is the end of graph I have get whit the command (while
true; do ps -o 'vsz,rss' <PID>; sleep 60; done). Looks like there
is not a big increase at any point. I had set swappiness to 10 and
the ns-slapd lives for 2 days approx.
Any idea?
Imágenes integradas 1
Regards, Moses.
2012/11/23 Moisés Barba Pérez <mbarperoi(a)gmail.com
<mailto:mbarperoi@gmail.com>>
I'm monitoring it right now, sending it on monday.
Anyway, is there any tunning configuration for number of
connections, memory, etc... that I can follow?? I have use
https://access.redhat.com/knowledge/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/8...
and
http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Performance_Tuning but
I don't know if there is some specific for serveral databases,
or multiple replication agreements, or very high number of
searches (I have 27 database and 60 replication agreements and
about 200 searches per second at rush hours)
Regards, Moses
2012/11/23 Ludwig Krispenz <lkrispen(a)redhat.com
<mailto:lkrispen@redhat.com>>
Hi,
from the data you show, the server process should never
reach 11GB, so It could be that you run into a memory
leak. Could you monitor process size growth ?
Start the server, prime the caches for all backends and
monitor process growth, eg running regular
ps -o 'vsz,rss' <pid>
See how fast the process grows, if it is steadily or if
there is a pattern and you can relate it to some cliend load.
Regards,
Ludwig
On 11/22/2012 02:33 PM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have been searching for memory usage in the server.
> This are the results:
>
> 389-ds 1.2.5 in a CentOS 5.5 64bits 4GB ram and 6GB swap
>
> * The ns-slapd proccess reaches 11GB of virtual memory.
> pmap shows multiple [anon] using the bigger part of that
> 11G virtual memory. I think the [anon] are memory
> reservation from malloc and mmap but I don't know what
> call this.
>
> * Looking for cachememsize using this search for one of
> the database
>
> ldapsearch -H ldaps://localhost -x -LLL -b
> "cn=monitor,cn=o_xxxx,cn=ldbm
> database,cn=plugins,cn=config" -D "cn=Directory Manager"
> -W "(objectclass=*)" | grep entrycache
> Enter LDAP Password:
> entrycachehitratio: 99
> currententrycachesize: 49973691
> maxentrycachesize: 125829120
> currententrycachecount: 6521
> maxentrycachecount: -1
>
> I have prime that database searching all entries with
> -> ldapsearch -H ldaps://localhost -x -LLL -b
> "o=cabu,dc=sacyl,dc=es" -D "cn=directory manager" -W
> "(objectclass=*)" 1.1 | grep dn: | wc -l
> The result is 7610 entries in that database, so looking
> the monitor again:
>
> currententrycachesize: 59315175
> maxentrycachesize: 125829120
> currententrycachecount: 7611
>
> The id2entry.db4 for that database is 59539456 so I guess
> I can reduce the cachememsize from 125829120 to about
> 60000000 Correct me if I am wrong.
> And the same for all the another database.
>
> * Now dbcachesize:
>
> ldapsearch -H ldaps://localhost -x -LLL -b "cn=monitor,
> cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins,cn=config" -D "cn=Directory
> Manager" -W "(objectclass=*)" | grep dbcache
> Enter LDAP Password:
> dbcachehits: 1440910461
> dbcachetries: 1440919648
> dbcachehitratio: 99
> dbcachepagein: 9187
> dbcachepageout: 128041
> dbcacheroevict: 9265
> dbcacherwevict: 0
>
> In some place I have read that dbcacheroevict
> and dbcachepageout should be 0 or increase the
> dbcachesize but if the ratio is 99 that should be ok, right?
>
> The thing is, if i search with db_stat for cache
> statistics says ratio=99
>
> db_stat -h /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-xxx/db/ -m
> 0Total cache size
> 1Number of caches
> 800MBPool individual cache size
> 0Maximum memory-mapped file size
> 0Maximum open file descriptors
> 0Maximum sequential buffer writes
> 0Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
> 0Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
> 1448MRequested pages found in the cache (99%)
> 9588Requested pages not found in the cache
> 112Pages created in the cache
> 9588Pages read into the cache
> 129932Pages written from the cache to the backing file
> 9668Clean pages forced from the cache
> 1Dirty pages forced from the cache
> 0Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
> 98066Current total page count
> 98005Current clean page count
> 61Current dirty page count
> 131071Number of hash buckets used for page location
> 1447MTotal number of times hash chains searched for a
> page (1447895423)
> 5The longest hash chain searched for a page
> 2819MTotal number of hash buckets examined for page
> location (2819107178 <tel:%282819107178>)
> 932The number of hash bucket locks that required waiting (0%)
> 86The maximum number of times any hash bucket lock was
> waited for
> 1The number of region locks that required waiting (0%)
> 9728The number of page allocations
> 60012The number of hash buckets examined during allocations
> 1381The maximum number of hash buckets examined for an
> allocation
> 9669The number of pages examined during allocations
> 1The max number of pages examined for an allocation
>
> If I look for an index like inetuserstatus (pres and eq)
> I get "Requested pages found in the cache" less than 99%
> so I search for "inetuserstatus=*" (pres) and
> "inetuserstatus=active", "inetuserstatus=inactive"
(eq)
> but the "requested pages" don't reaches the 99 or 100%
> and there is no more possibilities for that index.
>
>
> The thing is, why ns-sldapd is growing to consume all the
> swap and all the ram memory the SO lets it.
> Any idea or suggestion???
>
>
>
> 2012/11/15 Ludwig Krispenz <lkrispen(a)redhat.com
> <mailto:lkrispen@redhat.com>>
>
> you could use
> ldapsearch ... -b "cn=ldbm
> database,cn=plugins,cn=config" "cn=monitor"
> currententrycachesize
>
> to monitor the usage of the entrycache.
> But be aware that the process uses more memory than
> just the caches and the memory manager can also
> generate some overhead.
>
> Regards,
> Ludwig
>
>
> On 11/15/2012 02:55 PM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
>> yes, thats correct, but shouldn't use all that
>> memory because don't need so much memory
>>
>>
>> 2012/11/15 Ludwig Krispenz <lkrispen(a)redhat.com
>> <mailto:lkrispen@redhat.com>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 11/15/2012 01:54 PM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a memory issue with 389-ds 1.2.5 in a
>>> CentOS 5.5 64bits 4GB ram.
>>>
>>> The server swaps when the server physical
>>> memory increase over 75% approx. When the swap
>>> is full the server reaches 100% of physical
>>> memory and the SO kills the ns-ldapd process.
>>>
>>> Out of memory: Killed process 30383, UID 99,
>>> (ns-slapd).
>>>
>>> The cache sizes are:
>>>
>>> nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800
>>> nsslapd-import-cachesize: 20000000
>>> nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (for each 26 db)
>> do you mean you have 26 db backends with 125MB
>> entrycache each ? So you would reach 3.2GB for
>> entrycache and 800MB dbcache.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Ludwig
>>
>>>
>>> Which can be the problem?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 389 users mailing list
>>> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>>
>>
>> --
>> 389 users mailing list
>> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> <mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 389 users mailing list
>> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> <mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
>
>
>
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
> 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
--
389 users mailing list
389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users