openldap-bugs January 2014

openldap-bugs@openldap.org

23 participants
89 discussions

(ITS#7777) Filtering on modifyTimestamp is slower with index
by raphael.ouazana＠linagora.com 09 Jan '14

09 Jan '14

Full_Name: Raphael Ouazana Version: 2.4.38 OS: Linux URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/ Submission from: (NULL) (88.173.78.196) Hi, I have a case where using modifyTimestamp index is far slower than with no index. First with indexing: ###Caching $ time ldapsearch -b <people> -D <manager> -W # search result search: 2 result: 0 Success # numResponses: 293886 # numEntries: 293885 real 0m12.153s user 0m7.805s sys 0m1.888s ### Request $ time ldapsearch -b <people> -D &… [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by wietse＠porcupine.org 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

Hallvard Breien Furuseth: > On 2014-01-08 18:23, Howard Chu wrote: > > Wietse Venema wrote: > >> Hallvard Breien Furuseth: > >>> Process A may see garbage data. > > > > This is wrong. The fcntl locks will definitely prevent two processes > > from interfering with each other. The reason this bug occurs is > > because fcntl locks cannot prevent two transactions within a single > > process from stomping on each other. > > Hmm. OK, … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

On 2014-01-08 18:23, Howard Chu wrote: > Wietse Venema wrote: >> Hallvard Breien Furuseth: >>> Process A may see garbage data. > > This is wrong. The fcntl locks will definitely prevent two processes > from interfering with each other. The reason this bug occurs is > because fcntl locks cannot prevent two transactions within a single > process from stomping on each other. Hmm. OK, after some discussion with Howard: This was so with Howard's original code, it … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by hyc＠symas.com 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

Wietse Venema wrote: > Hallvard Breien Furuseth: >> Wietse Venema writes: >>> (...) what happens when the two above activities happen >>> in different processes? That is, process A (opens the database with >>> MDB_NOLOCK. opens a cursor, and walks the database without making >>> any changes to it), while process B opens the same database with >>> MDB_NOLOCK and performs the delete transactions. >>> >>> Will the process A … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

I write: > Maybe MDB_NOLOCK should have kept the lockfile and reader table, and > just omitted the mutexes/semaphores that synchronize transactions. Duh, nevermind. As Howard reminded me, that'd require readers to have write access to the lockfile, which was the problem which started all this. -- Hallvard

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by wietse＠porcupine.org 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

Hallvard Breien Furuseth: > Wietse Venema writes: > > (...) what happens when the two above activities happen > > in different processes? That is, process A (opens the database with > > MDB_NOLOCK. opens a cursor, and walks the database without making > > any changes to it), while process B opens the same database with > > MDB_NOLOCK and performs the delete transactions. > > > > Will the process A cursor read transaction trigger an assertion due … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by h.b.furuseth＠usit.uio.no 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

Wietse Venema writes: > (...) what happens when the two above activities happen > in different processes? That is, process A (opens the database with > MDB_NOLOCK. opens a cursor, and walks the database without making > any changes to it), while process B opens the same database with > MDB_NOLOCK and performs the delete transactions. > > Will the process A cursor read transaction trigger an assertion due > to the process B delete transactions? If not, why not? Process … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7774) LMDB assertion failure during Postfix cache cleanup
by wietse＠porcupine.org 08 Jan '14

08 Jan '14

This is a follow-up question, not a request to reopen the issue. It is about what happens when different processes open the same database with MDB_NOLOCK, and then perform the exact same operations that were the subject of ITS#7774. Brief summary of ITS#7774: when an LMDB database is opened with MDB_NOLOCK, a long-lived cursor's read transaction triggers an assertion when the same process performs a delete transaction on a different database element. This happened when walking an LMDB-based … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7775) LMDB terminates Postfix daemon process without logfile record
by wietse＠porcupine.org 07 Jan '14

07 Jan '14

Quanah Gibson-Mount: > --On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:03 PM +0000 wietse(a)porcupine.org wrote: > > > Having obtained the patch off-list, I confirm that this call-back > > feature works satisfactorily, and that this ITS can be closed. > > > > I am looking forward to the next LMDB release. > > Hi Wietse, > > I'm currently working with the dev team to get a new release out in the > next week or so. Please do not speed up the process at the cost … [View More]

1 0

Re: (ITS#7775) LMDB terminates Postfix daemon process without logfile record
by quanah＠zimbra.com 07 Jan '14

07 Jan '14

--On Tuesday, January 07, 2014 10:03 PM +0000 wietse(a)porcupine.org wrote: > Having obtained the patch off-list, I confirm that this call-back > feature works satisfactorily, and that this ITS can be closed. > > I am looking forward to the next LMDB release. Hi Wietse, I'm currently working with the dev team to get a new release out in the next week or so. --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Architect - Server Zimbra, Inc. -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open … [View More]

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-bugs January 2014