https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10402
Issue ID: 10402
Summary: Feature request: parameter for mdb_env_copy to exclude
databases
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: jeffro256(a)tutanota.com
Target Milestone: ---
## Desired behavior
New overload or API modification to `mdb_env_copy{...}()` which allows passing
a list of names of databases to exclude from the environment copy.
## Example use-case
The Monero blockchain database [1] has the option to derived a "pruned"
database for space-saving purposes. This removes some ~60% of data which some
users may find non-essential. Currently, the pruning code [2] copies each
non-pruned table manually, specifying key ordering functions, DB flags, etc. It
then drops some entries from the relevant "prunable tables". This, however,
adds technical maintenance debt when databases are added/updated. A preferable
alternative would be to write high-level modification code once and use an
overload of `mdb_env_copy` which excludes copying database that we know in
advance we don't want to copy. Then our pruning utility would work agnostic to
database changes.
## Why
Adding this functionality ourselves would involve re-writing large portions of
`mdb_env_copyfd{0,1}` and `mdb_env_cwalk`, which requires either A) vendoring
LMDB, or B) possibly breaking in future updates.
You may understandably be of the opinion that the maintenance burden is an "us
problem", and not deem pursuing this feature request worth it, but hopefully
you seem the value in this utility. Thanks for y'alls hard work on LMDB.
## Links
[1]
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/d32b5bfe18e2f5b979fa8dc3a8966…
[2]
https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/master/src/blockchain_utiliti…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10203
Issue ID: 10203
Summary: no pkgconfig file included for liblmdb
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: otto(a)drijf.net
Target Milestone: ---
liblmdb does not ship with a pkgconfig file. More and more build systems rely
on presense of a pkgconfig file, so it would be nice if liblmdb installed
oneone. An example:
prefix=/usr/local
exec_prefix=${prefix}
libdir=${prefix}/lib
includedir=${prefix}/include
Name: lmdb
Description: Lightning memory-mapped database: key-value data store
URL: https://www.symas.com/symas-embedded-database-lmdb
Version: 0.9.32
Libs: -L${libdir} -llmdb
Cflags: -I${includedir}
Thanks.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9769
Issue ID: 9769
Summary: Patch new feature batch get
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: rouzier(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 859
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=859&action=edit
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
New functionality mdb_cursor_get_batch
mdb_cursor_get_batch retrieves a page worth of key/values.
This is to reduce the number of function calls when doing a scan of the
database.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9291
Issue ID: 9291
Summary: Detection of corrupted database files
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: markus(a)objectbox.io
Target Milestone: ---
Let's assume we have to deal with a corrupted database for whatever reason
(e.g. broken hardware or file system). Current behavior seems to be mostly
undefined, which is understandable as it's not known what is broken (e.g. there
are no checksums).
For example, I'm seeing a SIGBUS in mdb_page_touch because the cursor's top
page (mp) is pointing to invalid memory (0x7f99cf004000) during a commit:
mdb_page_touch mdb.c:2772
mdb_page_search mdb.c:6595
mdb_freelist_save mdb.c:3575
mdb_txn_commit mdb.c:4060
Cursor data at that point: mc_snum = 1, mc_top = 0; myki[0] = 0
A SIGBUS is troublesome as it crashes the process, and I wonder if there are
other ways to detect such inconsistencies. If that be possible there could be
user-specific handling in place. E.g. a user might start a new database file.
This issue was reported by our users, which also provided DB files:
https://github.com/objectbox/objectbox-java/issues/859
I did not find a lot of consistency checks besides MDB_PAGE_NOTFOUND and
MDB_CORRUPTED. Also, I think there's no current way to thoroughly check a DB
file (e.g. like fsck for the DB file)?
My first idea other than checksums was to walk through the branch pages from
the root and check if the referenced pages are within reasonable bounds. Also
check the page content (e.g. nodes, flags). Additionally (optionally?), it
should be possible to check that the key values are actually sorted.
So, it boils down to 3 points in summary:
1.) If there no way to check the DB file for consistency yet(?), which approach
do you think would make sense? There might be two modes; one for a through
check through all data, and a quick check that does not take long and could be
e.g. done when opening the DB. Goal is to avoid process crashes and let users
handle the situation.
2.) In general, is it possible to add more consistency checks in regular DB
operations?
3.) Could the the particular situation (for which I provided the stack trace)
detected (e.g. is myki[0] = 0 legal here?)
I'd be happy to provide a patch if you provide some direction where you want to
take that.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10244
Issue ID: 10244
Summary: Fix pointer type
Product: LMDB
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: zanaviska(a)tutanota.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1026
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1026&action=edit
passed temprorary variable
Hi I am trying to add MINGW support for another project, But each time I get an
error
```
mdb.c:3921:76: error: passing argument 3 of 'GetOverlappedResult' from
incompatible pointer type [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]
note: expected 'LPDWORD' {aka 'long unsigned int *'} but argument is of type
'ssize_t *' {aka 'long long int *'}
```
So I came up with a fix for your software, with I attach in attachment
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10274
Issue ID: 10274
Summary: Replication issue on MMR configuration
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.14
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: falgon.comp(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1036
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1036&action=edit
In this attachment you will find 2 openldap configurations for 2 instances +
slamd conf exemple + 5 screenshots to show the issue and one text file to
explain what you see
Hello we are openning this issue further to the initial post in technical :
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/…
Issue :
We are working on a project and we've come across an issue with the replication
after performance testing :
*Configuration :*
RHEL 8.6
OpenLDAP 2.5.14
*MMR-delta *configuration on multiple servers attached
300,000 users configured and used for tests
*olcLastBind: TRUE*
Use of SLAMD (performance shooting)
*Problem description:*
We are currently running performance and resilience tests on our infrastructure
using the SLAMD tool configured to perform BINDs and MODs on a defined range of
accounts.
We use a load balancer (VIP) to poll all of our servers equally. (but it is
possible to do performance tests directly on each of the directories)
With our current infrastructure we're able to perform approximately 300
MOD/BIND/s. Beyond that, we start to generate delays and can randomly come
across one issue.
However, when we run performance tests that exceed our write capacity, our
replication between servers can randomly create an incident with directories
being unable to catch up with their replication delay.
The directories update their contextCSNs, but extremely slowly (like freezing).
From then on, it's impossible for the directories to catch again. (even with no
incoming traffic)
A restart of the instance is required to perform a full refresh and solve the
incident.
We have enabled synchronization logs and have no error or refresh logs to
indicate a problem ( we can provide you with logs if necessary).
We suspect a write collision or a replication conflict but this is never write
in our sync logs.
We've run a lot of tests.
For example, when we run a performance test on a single live server, we don't
reproduce the problem.
Anothers examples: if we define different accounts ranges for each server with
SALMD, we don't reproduce the problem either.
If we use only one account for the range, we don't reproduce the problem
either.
______________________________________________________________________
I have add some screenshots on attachement to show you the issue and all the
explanations.
______________________________________________________________________
*Symptoms :*
One or more directories can no longer be replicated normally after performance
testing ends.
No apparent error logs.
Need a restart of instances to solve the problem.
*How to reproduce the problem:*
Have at least two servers in MMR mode
Set LastBind to TRUE
Perform a SLAMD shot from a LoadBalancer in bandwidth mode OR start multiple
SLAMD test on same time for each server with the same account range.
Exceed the maximum write capacity of the servers.
*SLAMD configuration :*
authrate.sh --hostname ${HOSTNAME} --port ${PORTSSL} \
--useSSL --trustStorePath ${CACERTJKS} \
--trustStorePassword ${CACERTJKSPW} --bindDN "${BINDDN}" \
--bindPassword ${BINDPW} --baseDN "${BASEDN}" \
--filter "(uid=[${RANGE}])" --credentials ${USERPW} \
--warmUpIntervals ${WARMUP} \
--numThreads ${NTHREADS} ${ARGS}
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10236
Issue ID: 10236
Summary: fragmentation makes mdb_page_alloc slow
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.31
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: aalekseyev(a)janestreet.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 1022
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=1022&action=edit
patch is relative to LMDB_0.9.31
It's a known problem that mdb_page_alloc can be slow
when the free list is large and fragmented. [1] [2] [3]
I'm not sure it's known *how* slow it can be.
In our workload we saw a fragmented freelist leading
to a pathological O(n^2) behavior.
To handle a multi-page allocation we iterate loading chunks of the
free list one by one, and at every iteration we do O(n) work to check
if the allocation can succeed.
Even small-ish allocations (tens of pages) are repeatedly hitting
this edge case, with free list growing to ~1000000, and the outer loop
taking ~2000 iterations (10^9 worth of work in total, just to allocate a
few pages).
Even though I'm sure there are ways to avoid hitting this pathological
scenario so much (avoid values larger than 4k, or fix whatever causes
fragmentation), it seems unacceptable to have a performance cliff this bad.
I made a patch to make the allocation take ~O(n*log(n)), by loading
and merging multiple chunks at once instead of doing it one-by-one.
I'd appreciate it if someone could review the patch (attached), improve it,
and/or come up with an alternative fix.
The code in `midl.c` is kinda meme-y, including a contribution from GPT-4o, but
it performs well enough to speed up our pathological workload by ~20x (which is
still ~3x away from the non-fragmented case).
Anyway, the main thing that warrants scrutiny is the change in `mdb.c`:
I understand very little about lmdb internals and I worry that loading
multiple pages at once instead of one-by-one might break something.
[1] issue #8664
[2]
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-bugs@openldap.org/threa…
[3]
https://lists.openldap.org/hyperkitty/list/openldap-technical@openldap.org/…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=10353
Issue ID: 10353
Summary: No TLS connection on Windows because of missing
ENOTCONN in socket.h
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.6.10
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: julien.wadel(a)belledonne-communications.com
Target Milestone: ---
On Windows, the TLS connection cannot be done and we get the connection error:
Can't contact LDAP server.
=> Connections are done with WSAGetLastError().
After getting WSAEWOULDBLOCK, the connection is not restart because of the
state WSAENOTCONN that is not known.
OpenLDAP use ENOTCONN that is set to 126 by "ucrt/errno.h" while WSAENOTCONN
is 10057L.
Adding #define ENOTCONN WSAENOTCONN
like for EWOULDBLOCK resolve the issue.
Reference commit on external project:
https://gitlab.linphone.org/BC/public/external/openldap/-/commit/62fbfb12e8…
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9716
Issue ID: 9716
Summary: Fix default guide versions for head and 2.6
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: unspecified
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: needs_review
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: documentation
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: quanah(a)openldap.org
Target Milestone: ---
The preamble file needs to be fixed in openldap head and the 2.6 release branch
to be correct.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.