Please see my comments in your previous e-mail.
Quanah Gibson-Mount wrote:
--On Thursday, August 27, 2009 6:39 AM -0700 Rodrigo Costa
> Please see answer in your previous e-mail below.
> I'm also sending the information I could collect attached since it is a
> small file(5KB).
> The behavior that appears strange and that could indicate a problem is
> the fact that even when consumer is stopped the provider still doing
> something for a long time. This doesn't appear to be correct.
> Other strange behavior is that when system enters in this state one
> provider CPU stays running around 100% CPU usage. I made a jmeter script
> to test individual bind/search(no ldapsearch *) and then even with some
> load(like 200 simultaneous query) I do not see CPU in 100%. Something
> doesn't appear to be ok since I do not see why CPU should enter in 100%
I explained to you previously why this would be. Other comments inline.
>> Why are you stopping the provider to do a slapcat?
> [Rodrigo]Faster dump of data. And in any case if other situation like a
> problema occurs the secondary system could stay disconnect for other
[Rodrigo] I have 2 reasons :
1)Since backup takes sometime and DB has multiple
branches for the same
record the only way to have a consistent backup is executing a cold backup;
2)slapcat in a stop slapd could perform faster and also fulfill item 1
Do you have any evidence that an offline slapcat is faster than one
while slapd is running? I don't understand what you mean in the rest
of that sentence.
[Rodrigo] I didn't try with load traffic but it seems reasonable if a
cold backup is faster and cleaner than a hot backup.
>>> Even a small number of entrances are different when consumer in
>>> Provider 2
>>> connects to Provider 1 then syncrepl enters in the full DB search as
>> What is your sessionlog setting on each provider for the syncprov
> syncprov-checkpoint 10000 120
> syncprov-sessionlog 100000
Hm, I would probably checkpoint the cookie a lot more frequently than
you have it set to. The sessionlog setting seems fine to me.
> Same configuration in both systems.
>>> For definition purposes I have some memory limitations where I need to
>>> limit dncachesize for around 80% of DB entrances.
>> We already went through other things you could do to reduce your
>> memory footprint in other ways. You've completely ignored that
>> advice. As long as your dncachesize is in this state, I don't expect
>> things to behave normally.
> [Rodrigo]I implemented what was possible. The end is this cache config
> possible by the memory constraints :
> # Cache values
> # cachesize 10000
> cachesize 20000
> dncachesize 3000000
> # dncachesize 400000
> # idlcachesize 10000
> idlcachesize 30000
> # cachefree 10
> cachefree 100
You don't say anything in here about your DB_CONFIG settings, which is
where you could stand to gain the most amount of memory back. I do
see you're definitely running a very restricted
[Rodrigo]DB_CONFIG is using only 100MB of memory and DB_LOG_AUTOREMOVE.
>> What value did you set for "cachefree"?
> [Rodrigo] cachefree 100
[Rodrigo] I made the change proposed and tested. The behavior was
really better since after dncachesize was filled the issue did not
repeated as before.
BUT it just took more time until the behavior repeats. After
time then just after dncachesize reaches around 3Mi the behavior
returned. What happens is :
1-> Provider 1 CPU start to consume around 100%;
2-> Consumer 2 CPU goes to 0% consumption(before it was around 10% when
replication in place);
3-> Replication never ends(I cannot see in the Provider 2 data) and even
I stop Consumer 2(or slapd) the CPU in Provider 1 remains days in 100%.
Looks like code enter in a dead loop which I could not identify the
condition or the requirement to avoid it. I generated some GDB traces
and as soon as possible(there is space) I will put in the ftp.
This value is likely substantially way too low for your system
configuration. This is how many entries get freed from any of the
caches. With your dncachesize being 3,000,000, removing 100 entries
from it will do hardly anything, and may be part of the issue. If it
wasn't for the major imbalance between your entry, idl, and
dncachesizes, I would suggest a fairly high value like 100,000. But
given your entry cache is 20,000, you'll probably have to limit the
cachefree to 5000-10000. But it is going to need to be higher than 100.
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration