Hi,

Thanks for the reply. There is an implementation = already in our product.

To summarize on the behavior observed<= /p>

Scenario#1:

Single LDAP session with LDAP Bind does authentic= ation in Sequential Order. Due to sequential execution of OpenLDAP Search A= PI after version 2.4.24 we observe packet drops in LDAP Authentication Requ= est. This is resulting in Low performance of our product.

Scenario #2: (this is a sample test case tried to= compare the behavior with Scenario#1)

There are say 10 LDAP instances configured, all p= ointing to the same LDAP server. The request-response is handled properly, = performance is improved when compared to scenario#1. But the drawback is th= e multiple threads for every LDAP client session, utilizing more memory. This design may not be recommended = for our product.

Pl. reply back for any further queries / clarific= ations. The packet captures file size is big (>6MB), can try to share th= e relevant request-response details……

Thanks,
Raji

-----Original Message-----
From: Ond=F8ej Kuzn=EDk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net>
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 8:18 PM
To: Rajalakshmi Jayaraman <jrajalakshmi(a)juniper.net>
Cc: openldap-its(a)OpenLDAP.org
Subject: Re: (ITS#9088) Concurrency not seen in OpenLDAP 2.4.44<= /p>

On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 09:22:45AM +0000, jrajalakshmi(a)juniper.= net wrote:

> (1) What problem/issue/behavior are you havi= ng trouble with? What do

> you expect to see?

> Using OpenLDAP version 2.4.44 we are not see= ing Concurrency whereas in

> OpenLDAP Version 2.4.23 we are seeing Concur= rent LDAP Requests.

> In our product OpenLDAP 2.4.23 was previousl= y used and the concurrent

> request for search using the API ' ldap_sear= ch_ext_s() ' was working

> as expected and our product scalability was = better.

> We have recently upgraded LDAP to OpenLDAP 2= .4.44. But with this

> version, the api 'ldap_search_ext_s()' does = not seem to work as

> expected, i.e concurrent requests handling i= s not happening.

Hi,

if you want the project to investigate this, it w= ould be useful if you provide a sample program that exhibits this behaviour= with a vanilla build of 2.4.48 and doesn't exhibit that with an analogous = build of 2.4.23.

I would like to point out that since 2.4.23 is a = very old release, it is also possible you have been relying on undocumented= behaviour or a libldap_r bug that has since been fixed. That is what a sam= ple program would also help to rule out.

Regards,

Ond=F8ej Kuzn=EDk

Senior Software Engineer

Symas Corporation &n= bsp; = ; https://urldefense.co= m/v3/__http://www.symas.com__;!8WoA6RjC81c!Xs72RxgyQ_p-CmwcbkhCu7cCMZXgmihq= yjqC563sunVF3OtjroYFsOTBsDbndrE4VnYu$

Packaged, certified, and supported LDAP solutions= powered by OpenLDAP

Juniper Business Use Only