On 12/08/2014 05:43 PM, Fong, Trevor wrote:
Hi Mike,
It's Mark :-) I get that a lot for some reason.
Thanks for the reply. The typical result of the result is:
[08/Dec/2014:07:08:04 -0800] conn=130262 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101
nentries=5 etime=0
Yeah this looks fine.
There are no notes=A/notes=U in the results.
Do you mean in the entire access log,
or just for that search?
Can you run logconv.pl and post the results? "logconv.pl -V <access
logs>"
Thanks Trevor,
Mark
Objectclass and member are both indexed.
There were 30,000-odd searches on conn=130262, which took 34 mins.
Thanks,
Trev
From: Mark Reynolds <mareynol(a)redhat.com <mailto:mareynol@redhat.com>>
Reply-To: "mreynolds(a)redhat.com <mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com>"
<mreynolds(a)redhat.com <mailto:mreynolds@redhat.com>>
Date: Monday, December 8, 2014 at 11:29 AM
To: "389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>"
<389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
<mailto:389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>>, Trevor Fong
<trevor.fong(a)ubc.ca <mailto:trevor.fong@ubc.ca>>
Subject: Re: [389-users] 389-ds and Multi CPU's
On 12/08/2014 02:08 PM, Fong, Trevor wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
>
> We’ve inherited a 389-ds system (1.2.11.15-48.el6_6) that is running
> on a VM provisioned with a single CPU. We have been experiencing
> high CPU with a client that connects with a single connection, and
> then runs large amounts of queries of the form:
>
> SRCH base="ou=GROUPS,dc=<our dc>" scope=2
>
filter="(&(objectClass=groupOfNames)(member=uid=<loginname>,ou=EMPLOYEES,<our
> dc>))" attrs=“1.1"
Trevor,
From the access log, what is the result of this search? etime? It
there a notes=U/notes=A in the result? It could be an unindexed
search which would cause the high CPU.
Thanks,
Mark
>
> We’re wondering if adding extra CPU’s to the vm will make things
> better. The original engineer noted that at the time of
> implementation, he had come across some notes that indicated that the
> underlying process was single threaded and adding extra CPU’s would
> not make any improvement; in fact, on heavily loaded vm
> infrastructure like ours, may make things worse as the the vm would
> have to wait for the CPU to become available. Is this still true?
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Trev
>
>
> --
> 389 users mailing list
>
389-users@lists.fedoraproject.orghttps://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