openldap-devel January 2008

openldap-devel@openldap.org

17 participants
20 discussions

Future of dyngroup.c?
by Gavin Henry 17 Jan '08

17 Jan '08

Hi All, What are the plans for dyngroup.c since dynlist.c does everything and more? Leave as is? -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 279484 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 824887 E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com Open Source. Open Solutions(tm). http://www.suretecsystems.com/

1 0

slapo-constraint with uri in 2.4.8?
by Michael Ströder 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

HI! Any chance to have slapo-constraint from HEAD to be released with 2.4.8? I'd like to make use of uri type. I'll bang on slapo-constraint HEAD in the mean-time. Ciao, Michael.

3 3

When should backends send results?
by Hallvard B Furuseth 16 Jan '08

16 Jan '08

With back-relay to back-ldif/back-null, Password Modify fails with "operation not supported within naming context". However it works with back-ldif without back-relay, and with back-relay to back-bdb. The difference is that back-relay:relay_back_op_extended() does send_ldap_error( op, rs, LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM, "operation not supported within naming context" ); return 1; while back-bdb:bdb_extended() does rs->sr_text = "not supported within naming context"; return LDAP_UNWILLING_TO_PERFORM; and back-ldif/back-null have no be_extended. It works with back-relay if I change relay_back_op_extended() to do the same as back-bdb. back-ldif also lacks a compare, so I tried the same change to relay_back_op_compare(), but then slapd did not respond to Compare. So, which backend is right? Should a backends's or overlay's be_extended() leave it to the caller to send results, just like be_bind() at success? Or should that be done just in some cases? Is it documented somewhere? Back-relay also logs two results, I haven't checked if it sends two: conn=0 op=1 EXT oid=1.3.6.1.4.1.4203.1.11.1 conn=0 op=1 PASSMOD id="cn=urgle,cn=db" old new conn=0 op=1 RESULT tag=120 err=53 text=operation not supported within naming context conn=0 op=1 RESULT oid= err=1 text=operation not supported within naming context -- Hallvard

2 2

Re: commit: ldap/libraries/libldap url.c
by Gavin Henry 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > Update of /repo/OpenLDAP/pkg/ldap/libraries/libldap > > Modified Files: > url.c 1.106 -> 1.107 > > Log Message: > ITS#5324 don't use %n > > > CVS Web URLs: > http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/libraries/libldap/ > http://www.openldap.org/devel/cvsweb.cgi/libraries/libldap/url.c > > Changes are generally available on cvs.openldap.org (and CVSweb) > within 30 minutes of being committed. Ah, missed that one. Sorry. -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. OpenLDAP Engineering Team. E ghenry(a)OpenLDAP.org Community developed LDAP software. http://www.openldap.org/project/

1 0

back-ldif tests
by Hallvard B Furuseth 11 Jan '08

11 Jan '08

There are tests that don't support back-ldif again... I'll file an ITS (or reuse ITS#5265?), but first I'm wondering: When a test with back-ldif fails because data gets sorted differently from with bdb/hdb and the compare with expected data fails, what's the best way to fix them? We can change the data, or add -S "" to ldapsearch, or vary between both. The searches are slowly growing -S arguments all over the place, I'm not sure if that is a good or a bad thing. It's not always easy to see if some testdata is carefully built or not. OTOH maybe there are tests where the order is important and that's not easy to see either. E.g. test042-valsort can be fixed by renaming Dave to John, so he comes after George in data/valsort3.out. Looks harmless, I'll do that unless someone says it's a bad idea. test011-glue-slapadd, test012-glue-populate, test029-ldapglue look like they can be most easily fixed with -S. -- Hallvard

2 2

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd backend.c connection.c operation.c passwd.c sl_malloc.c
by Hallvard B Furuseth 08 Jan '08

08 Jan '08

ando(a)OpenLDAP.org writes: > operation.c 1.81 -> 1.82 > rename ldap_pvt_thread_pool_setkey_x() to > ldap_pvt_thread_pool_setkey() (as part of ITS#5309) One nitpick - in this code in operation.c: > ldap_pvt_thread_pool_getkey( ctx, (void *)slap_op_free, &otmp, NULL ); > op2 = otmp; > LDAP_STAILQ_NEXT( op, o_next ) = op2; > ldap_pvt_thread_pool_setkey( ctx, (void *)slap_op_free, > (void *)op, slap_op_q_destroy, NULL, NULL ); can it be a problem if 'op' is stored to the context before its o_next gets updated? If not, we can save a getkey call - move the setkey up instead. I _think_ it's all right since only the current thread should be accessing the key (except during pauses), and the pool can't pause here. -- Hallvard

2 1

Re: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/back-bdb index.c</title>
by Hallvard B Furuseth 07 Jan '08

07 Jan '08

hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org wrote: > index.c 1.70 -> 1.71 > ITS#4112 temporarily disable broken code > >-#ifdef LDAP_COMP_MATCH >+#if 0 /* ifdef LDAP_COMP_MATCH */ There are other '#ifdef LDAP_COMP_MATCH's for component indexing in bdb, should they stay? (Can kill at least the one above, to shut gcc up about now-unused variables.) -- Regards, Hallvard

1 0

member & groupOfNames
by Pierangelo Masarati 05 Jan '08

05 Jan '08

slapd often assumes "member" and "groupOfNames" are always defined (e.g. in ACLs, but in many other places). However, this attribute and objectClass are defined in core.schema (core.ldif). For consistency, I believe they should rather be hardcoded in schema_prep.c. p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati OpenLDAP Core Team SysNet s.r.l. via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it --------------------------------------- Office: +39 02 23998309 Mobile: +39 333 4963172 Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it ---------------------------------------

1 0

CPU scaling
by Howard Chu 05 Jan '08

05 Jan '08

Has anyone got a dual or quad socket Intel Xeon based server for testing? I've been testing on two AMD systems, one quad socket dual core and one dual socket quad core. There are a lot of different ways to tune these systems... slapd currently uses a single listener thread and a pool of some number of worker threads. I've found that performance improves significantly when the listener thread is pinned to a single core, and no other threads are allowed to run there. I've also found that performance improves somewhat when all worker threads are pinned to specific cores, instead of being free to run on any of the remaining cores. This has made testing a bit more complicated than I expected. I originally was just pinning the entire process to a set number of cores (first 1, then 2, incrementing up to 8) to see how performance changed with additional cores. But due to the motherboard layout and the fact that the I/O bridges are directly attached to particular sockets, it makes a big difference exactly which cores you use. Another item I noticed is that while we scale perfectly linearly from 1 core to 2 cores in a socket (with a dual-core processor), as we start spreading across multiple sockets the scaling tapers off drastically. That makes sense given the constraints of the Hypertransport connections between the sockets. On the quad-core system we scale pretty linearly from 1 to 4 cores (in one socket) but again the improvement tapers off drastically when the 2nd socket is added in. I don't have any Xeon systems to test on at the moment, but I'm curious to see how they do given that all CPUs should have equal access to the northbridge. (Of course, given that both memory and I/O traffic go over the bus, I'm not expecting any miracles...) The quad-core system I'm using is a Supermicro AS-2021M-UR+B; it's based on an Nvidia MCP55 chipset. The gigabit ethernet is integrated in this chipset. Using back-null we can drive this machine to over 54,000 authentications/second, at which point 100% of a core is consumed by interrupt processing in the ethernet driver. The driver doesn't support interrupt coalescing, unfortunately. (By the way, that represents somewhere between 324,000pps and 432,000pps. While there's only 5 LDAP packets per transaction, some of the client machines choose to send separate TCP ACKs, while others don't, which makes the packet count somewhere between 5-8 packets per transaction. I hadn't taken those ACKs into account when I discussed these figures before. At these packet sizes (80-140 bytes), I think the network would be 100% saturated at around 900,000pps.) Interestingly, while 2 cores can get over 13,000 auths/second, and 4 cores can get around 25,000 auths/second (using back-hdb), with all 8 cores it's only peaking at 29,000 auths/second. This tells me it's better to run two separate slapds in a mirrormode configuration on this box (4 cores per process) than to run a single process across all of the cores. Then I'd expect to hit 50,000 auths/second total, pretty close to the limits of the ethernet device/driver. -- -- Howard Chu Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

2 3

OpenLDAP memberof plugin and Samba4
by Andrew Bartlett 04 Jan '08

04 Jan '08

I've been working with current CVS OpenLDAP and the memberof plugin, for Samba4 integration. Following your suggestion, I'm trying to load multiple memberof instances, but the syntax doesn't seem to work for me. Attached is how I'm currently configuring the overlay. It causes this when loading: overlay_config(): overlay "memberof" already in list overlay_config(): overlay "memberof" already in list ... It also only appears to work for the first entry (happily that is member/memberof, and this seems to have worked). Is the syntax I'm using correct, or does the module need to be reworked for this operation? Finally, I'm wondering if the error returns can be adjusted: When I add invalid member to a group, OpenLDAP returns LDAP_CONSTRAINT_VIOLATION <adding non-existing object as group member>, but AD returns error 32, LDAP_NO_SUCH_OBJECT for this situation. Would it be reasonable to change this, or could it be made configurable. Having the LDAP server give me the error the client expects would avoid the need for a translation layer. (it might be nobody ever looks at this, but I don't like to make that assumption). Thanks, Andrew Bartlett -- Andrew Bartlett http://samba.org/~abartlet/ Authentication Developer, Samba Team http://samba.org Samba Developer, Red Hat Inc. http://redhat.com

4 12

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

openldap-devel January 2008