Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:

2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>

Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
> Hi
>
> I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory Server. We have
> increased the memory for the database cache and for each database
> entry cache. These are the new values:
>
> cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
> nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB)
>
> cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
> nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB)
>
> We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, so the
server
> should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 =
4040MB). But
> when I go to the monitoring section of the management console, the
> database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according
to the
> documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is
very far
> for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots
attached).
> Am I confused or the configuration is not correct?
When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio will be 0
until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the cache rather
than the database.

Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase"
"objectclass=*"
>

Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. I have done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about 50000 entries. Is this normal?

We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation. What platform? What 389-ds-base version? 32-bit or 64-bit?

> Regards.
>

---

-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:

2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>

Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
>
> 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@redhat.com
<mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com> <mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com
<mailto:rmeggins@redhat.com>>>
>
>     Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote:
>     > Hi
>     >
>     > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory
Server. We have
>     > increased the memory for the database cache and for each
database
>     > entry cache. These are the new values:
>     >
>     > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
>     > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB)
>     >
>     > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config
>     > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB)
>     >
>     > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM,
so the
>     server
>     > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 =
>     4040MB). But
>     > when I go to the monitoring section of the management
console, the
>     > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according
>     to the
>     > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is
>     very far
>     > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots
>     attached).
>     > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct?
>     When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio
will be 0
>     until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the
cache rather
>     than the database.
>
>     Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase"
>     "objectclass=*"
>     >
>
>
> Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days.
I have
> done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have
> also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only
> 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about
> 50000 entries. Is this normal?
We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation.  What
platform?  What 389-ds-base version?  32-bit or 64-bit?
>

All servers are upgraded to 1.2.5 version, under CentOS 5.5 x86 (32 bit). Which is that bug? Is it in Bugzilla? \

Not sure, but I seem to recall this problem being fixed (perhaps as part of another bug fix) in 1.2.6.

---

-- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users