В Чтв, 05/09/2013 в 11:35 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount пишет: OS: Ubuntu 12.04.2 LTS Slapd: 2.4.28-1.1ubuntu4.3 Backend: HDB FULL database ldif size: 2M /var/lib/ldap size: 220Mb (190Mb of which are 19 log.* files) Database entries: 1,7k I/O wait as well as Disks Utilization is near zero. The servers in question are slaves, so there is no visible disk activity, except for syslog. The question is in high CPU usage considering small database and low rps.

Nachricht <0FCBC02976FFDC0CF5D9A489(a)[192.168.1.22]&gt;: [...] [...] Hi guys! While I have nothing against bug-free software, I cannot read that "update to the latest version and database" any more: Is it really because the releases of the previous years that many people used were so terrible (which, by induction, means that the latest versions recommended by that time were terrible, so, as seen from tomorrow's perspective, the versions advertised today are also terribly full of bugs. In effect this means that there will never be a version that is not full of terrible bugs), or is it that no-one wants to care or take a look at about previous releases? Or are you just recruiting beta-testers for the current release? Regards, Ulrich

В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 04:42 -0700, Howard Chu пишет: This means old versions are not supported and makes problems with openldap distribution packages as distributions don't update upstream versions inside distribution version. :( For Debian that means staying with bugs for >2 years. It's hard to call this policy "right".

--On Friday, September 06, 2013 2:16 PM +0200 Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl(a)rz.uni-regensburg.de&gt; wrote: I would note that even the Debian openldap maintainers say not to use their packages for production: <http://www.openldap.org/faq/data/cache/1456.html> --Quanah -- Quanah Gibson-Mount Lead Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration

Покотиленко Костик wrote: Distro packages are supported by their distros. We have no way to support them anyway since they tend to insert their own private patches and we have no visibility into what they changed. (Nor do we want it - there's doeznes of distros out there and it's not our responsibility to keep track of what they're all doing.) And in the specific case of Debian, given their history of introducing critical bugs into their builds http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/05/random_number_b.html there is no way any upstream project will ever take responsibility for supporting Debian packages. You may not think this policy is "right" but it's the only practical approach when distros take liberties with what they release. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/

В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 15:24 +0200, Jens Vagelpohl пишет: I'm not complaining. I'm looking for a better way of upstream -> end-user. What I was trying to tell was: if openldap team could backport fixes (without new features) to old versions - then distributors could update packages not breaking their policy. The thing is that I see clear split to conservative anti-distro point - "compile yourself" and distro-oriented "stay with bugs". If it's possible to find a compromise - everybody will benefit, isn't it?

В Птн, 06/09/2013 в 09:31 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount пишет: The reason is that openldap's PATCH component includes new features (that by itself introduces new bugs) rather than only FIXES to existing features. This breaks disto's policy and this is the point.

Michael: I cannot tell if you're being sarcastic or not, so, I'm running with your words: Software isn't developed in a vacuum - when truly useful, it's intended use it to be used and it cannot be used sans distros (in any realistic production operation; sure you can compile everything from source and create StroderOS). While you may be blessed with using whatever software, from whatever source you desire, with any (or no) support available, many system administrators are under edicts and must work within the policies and instructions of their company. SOX is a big deal at any organization that is publicly traded or works with government entities. The support model of essentially "it's not the latest; go away until you update (compile it)" isn't helpful. As for the request that started this thread; he was after information (on how to get performance related information), not 'please tell me what is broken in my environment': "Is there a way to log the time each operation took?" ... "The point is to find which search operations a taking long time to develop a solution." Which generated only one (useful) response: Quanah: "I would highly advise upgrading to a current release (2.4.36) and switching to back-mdb." If the information Casper requested isn't available, say so. If it is, how would he get it? Either way "upgrade to the latest" doesn’t address his actual question(s). Continuous improvement is an excellent goal, but I don't see how answering questions on "not very recent" versions is a bad thing. - chris PS: Just my 2 cents. -----Original Message----- From: openldap-technical-bounces(a)OpenLDAP.org [mailto:openldap-technical-bounces@OpenLDAP.org] On Behalf Of Michael Ströder Sent: Friday, September 06, 2013 11:37 AM To: casper(a)meteor.dp.ua Cc: openldap-technical(a)openldap.org Subject: Re: Antw: Re: Log service time? Покотиленко Костик wrote: Distribution policy does not matter here. What matters is continous improvement of OpenLDAP itself. Ciao, Michael. This message is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and remove it from your system.

Nachricht <1378487147.18073.75.camel(a)casper-hp.friendin.net&gt;: So maybe what's missing is a definition what qualifies as MAJOR version, MINOR version, and PATCH (plus the policy enforcement to comply with the definitions). (Non-native English, I hope I used the correct words) Regards, Ulrich

В Чтв, 05/09/2013 в 13:58 -0700, Quanah Gibson-Mount пишет: Thanks for the pointers. I'll consider trying more recent versions.

В Чтв, 05/09/2013 в 11:56 -0700, Howard Chu пишет: Every message in syslog has time the operation has finished at. What I need is the time it took each operation to complete (in milliseconds or microseconds). It would be strange if the is no way to get this information.