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)

Which can be the problem?

-- 389 users mailing list 389-users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

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) 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users

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... 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&gt; > 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 > 0 Total cache size > 1 Number of caches > 800MB Pool individual cache size > 0 Maximum memory-mapped file size > 0 Maximum open file descriptors > 0 Maximum sequential buffer writes > 0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers > 0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space > 1448M Requested pages found in the cache (99%) > 9588 Requested pages not found in the cache > 112 Pages created in the cache > 9588 Pages read into the cache > 129932 Pages written from the cache to the backing file > 9668 Clean pages forced from the cache > 1 Dirty pages forced from the cache > 0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread > 98066 Current total page count > 98005 Current clean page count > 61 Current dirty page count > 131071 Number of hash buckets used for page location > 1447M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (1447895423) > 5 The longest hash chain searched for a page > 2819M Total number of hash buckets examined for page location (2819107178 > ) > 932 The number of hash bucket locks that required waiting (0%) > 86 The maximum number of times any hash bucket lock was waited for > 1 The number of region locks that required waiting (0%) > 9728 The number of page allocations > 60012 The number of hash buckets examined during allocations > 1381 The maximum number of hash buckets examined for an allocation > 9669 The number of pages examined during allocations > 1 The 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&gt; > >> 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&gt; >> >>> 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 list389-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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 389 users mailing list389-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 >> > > > > -- > 389 users mailing list389-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 >

What do you think about change the OS overcommit_memory to 2 instead of 0???

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

Hi, I have been testing before open a ticket and I would like to get a clear situation of fail. I have created a script to prime all indexes in my bd and all entries and the use of memory is about 1.5 GB, so I guess the virtual memory grows with the connection pool for some reason. Is there a way to control the memory usage of connections,

or a way to see the consumtions?

Regards, Moses 2012/11/27 Ludwig Krispenz <lkrispen(a)redhat.com <mailto:lkrispen@redhat.com>> Hi, On 11/27/2012 09:04 AM, Moisés Barba Pérez wrote: > What do you think about change the OS overcommit_memory to 2 > instead of 0??? 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 <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