https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #29 from Hallvard Furuseth <h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no> ---
On 03.08.2021 14:25, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote:
> --- Comment #24 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
> (In reply to Quanah Gibson-Mount from comment #23)
>> Created attachment 799 [details]
>> proposed fix
>
> In patch #5
> + ldap_pvt_thread_pool_setspeed( &connection_pool, ctx, 0 );
>
> Shouldn't the minimum speed be 1, not 0?
That's just the API. 0 = "slowest". I didn't want to export details
of the tpool implementation, which might get replaced. Could use 0.0
so it looks different, if floating point numbers are OK in libldap.
> Since you have
> +enum { NOT_PAUSED = 0, WANT_PAUSE = LDAP_PVT_THREAD_POOL_SPEED_MAX+1, PAUSED
> };
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #28 from Hallvard Furuseth <h.b.furuseth(a)usit.uio.no> ---
On 03.08.2021 14:36, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote:
> https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
>
> --- Comment #25 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
> (In reply to Hallvard Furuseth from comment #17)
>
>> (...) A pause only stops tasks with speed < ltp_pause.
>> In thread_pool_pause(), replace the WANT_PAUSE stage with
>>
>> while (++ltp_pause <= max speed) {
>> wait until no more tasks with speed < ltp_pause;
>> }
>>
>> Then fast tasks should breeze past slow ones when preparing
>> to pause. Until all threads have slow tasks, anyway.
>
> I don't understand how this solves anything. If a slow indexing
> task is currently running, and a fast config mod comes in, it's
> still the case that the config change could pull the DB out from
> under the indexer task. So there's nothing safe about letting the
> fast task progress while the slow task is still running
Fast tasks still wait for *running* slow tasks. And when
there is no pause involved, slow tasks get scheduled normally.
This is only about scheduling when something wants a pause.
setspeed() does CHECK_PAUSE, standing aside for faster tasks.
Then, a fast task which wants a pause (cn=config change #2) won't
block other fast tasks while a slower task (indexer) is running.
So normal tasks will keep getting scheduled, instead of slapd
locking up for them.
This all depends on there being only a few config changes/slow
tasks at any time, since they do occupy a thread.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #27 from OndÅ™ej KuznÃk <ondra(a)mistotebe.net> ---
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 12:42:01PM +0000, openldap-its(a)openldap.org wrote:
> I don't think we should be changing anything else about how tpool
> handles pauses. We should just be fixing this specific case of the
> indexer being a slow task, by implementing checkpointing into the
> indexer. I.e., when it detects a pause request it should save its
> current progress and pause itself. If it gets resumed it can pick up
> where it left off, or if a config change affects it it can abort or
> or start over. A checkpointing mechanism is needed anyway, for the
> case of a (clean) shutdown while the indexer is running.
I'll put a suggestion here that we discussed previously: to support this
checkpointing for pauses/shutdowns, the indexer could be writing to a
"scratch" database (whatever that means for each backend) along with
resume data and move them into place when finished. You mentioned that
for liblmdb, this would need support for a database to be renamed.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #26 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Howard Chu from comment #25)
> (In reply to Hallvard Furuseth from comment #17)
>
> > Duuh, right. I got stuck looking for what's special about the
> > indexing task and couldn't find it:-( I need to make it special.
> >
> > So, let tasks declare their expected speed until finish or
> > between pausechecks. At FAST=1 (default) and SLOW=0.
> > A pause only stops tasks with speed < ltp_pause.
> > In thread_pool_pause(), replace the WANT_PAUSE stage with
> >
> > while (++ltp_pause <= max speed) {
> > wait until no more tasks with speed < ltp_pause;
> > }
> >
> > Then fast tasks should breeze past slow ones when preparing
> > to pause. Until all threads have slow tasks, anyway.
>
> I don't understand how this solves anything. If a slow indexing
> task is currently running, and a fast config mod comes in, it's
> still the case that the config change could pull the DB out from
> under the indexer task. So there's nothing safe about letting the
> fast task progress while the slow task is still running.
I don't think we should be changing anything else about how tpool
handles pauses. We should just be fixing this specific case of the
indexer being a slow task, by implementing checkpointing into the
indexer. I.e., when it detects a pause request it should save its
current progress and pause itself. If it gets resumed it can pick up
where it left off, or if a config change affects it it can abort or
or start over. A checkpointing mechanism is needed anyway, for the
case of a (clean) shutdown while the indexer is running.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #25 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Hallvard Furuseth from comment #17)
> Duuh, right. I got stuck looking for what's special about the
> indexing task and couldn't find it:-( I need to make it special.
>
> So, let tasks declare their expected speed until finish or
> between pausechecks. At FAST=1 (default) and SLOW=0.
> A pause only stops tasks with speed < ltp_pause.
> In thread_pool_pause(), replace the WANT_PAUSE stage with
>
> while (++ltp_pause <= max speed) {
> wait until no more tasks with speed < ltp_pause;
> }
>
> Then fast tasks should breeze past slow ones when preparing
> to pause. Until all threads have slow tasks, anyway.
I don't understand how this solves anything. If a slow indexing
task is currently running, and a fast config mod comes in, it's
still the case that the config change could pull the DB out from
under the indexer task. So there's nothing safe about letting the
fast task progress while the slow task is still running.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8958
--- Comment #24 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Quanah Gibson-Mount from comment #23)
> Created attachment 799 [details]
> proposed fix
In patch #5
+ ldap_pvt_thread_pool_setspeed( &connection_pool, ctx, 0 );
Shouldn't the minimum speed be 1, not 0?
Since you have
+enum { NOT_PAUSED = 0, WANT_PAUSE = LDAP_PVT_THREAD_POOL_SPEED_MAX+1, PAUSED
};
A speed of 0 would mean no pause at all, wouldn't it?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8649
Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|--- |TEST
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
--- Comment #4 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
fixed in master
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9618
Issue ID: 9618
Summary: Sync'ing is not happening in MDB_WRITEMAP mode on
Windows with mdb.master3
Product: LMDB
Version: 0.9.29
Hardware: All
OS: Windows
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: liblmdb
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: kriszyp(a)gmail.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 831
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=831&action=edit
Revert back to using standard FlushViewOfFile/FlushFileBuffers to sync data
with WRITEMAP mode on Windows
With ITS#9017, Windows sync'ing is performed by using the write-through (and
overlapped) writes, as it performs much better than
FlushViewOfFile/FlushFileBuffers. However, this functionality has regressed on
mdb.master3 because performing the writes is dependent on tracking and writing
the list of dirty pages, which is not tracked in WRITEMAP mode. This means that
on mdb.master3, with MDB_WRITEMAP, sync'ing is not really happening on Windows.
I think it is probably preferable to not try to maintain an exception for dirty
page tracking in WRITEMAP mode just for Windows. The attached patch reverts
back to using the standard map/file sync procedure
(FlushViewOfFile/FlushFileBuffers) to sync data when in WRITEMAP on Windows.
This still maintains the (better performing) write-through based sync technique
for standard, non-WRITEMAP mode on Windows.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9603
Issue ID: 9603
Summary: tcp wrappers no longer works with IPv6
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: slapd
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: toby(a)inf.ed.ac.uk
Target Milestone: ---
Hi,
OpenLDAP 2.5.5
Testing on Scientific Linux 7.9
It looks like slapd no longer passes an IPv6 address correctly to tcp wrappers.
Steps to Reproduce: connect to 2.5.5 slapd over IPv6 with tcp-wrappers enabled.
Actual Results: access is always denied
Expected Results: access permitted for IP addresses in /etc/hosts.allow
Additional information:
The problem seems to be that an IPv6 address is passed to hosts_ctl (~line 2324
in servers/slapd/daemon.c) as "[ipv6-address]" (with enclosing '[' and ']') -
rather than "ipv6-address", e.g. the logged output is:
warning: can't resolve hostname ([2001:630:3c1:212:a2d3:c1ff:fe25:eec3]): Name
or service not known
fd=19 DENIED from unknown ([2001:630:3c1:212:a2d3:c1ff:fe25:eec3]
... when compared to a 2.4.59 slapd:
fd=19 DENIED from unknown (2001:630:3c1:212:a2d3:c1ff:fe25:eec3)
IPv4 connections work OK.
Thanks
Toby Blake
School of Informatics
University of Edinburgh
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.
https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9602
Issue ID: 9602
Summary: Remove the build warnings in tls_o.c
Product: OpenLDAP
Version: 2.5.5
Hardware: All
OS: All
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: ---
Component: libraries
Assignee: bugs(a)openldap.org
Reporter: Bin.Lan(a)windriver.com
Target Milestone: ---
Created attachment 829
--> https://bugs.openldap.org/attachment.cgi?id=829&action=edit
the issue fix patch
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.