5:58 a.m.
Hi there !
We are using two LDAP servers providers (openldap 2.4.23) in mirror
mode: one just to receive modifies and the other, just to be "consumed"
by 11 consumer servers. Both servers have almost 1MM objects with 10kb
in size each. Id2entry.bdb has 21Gb and dn2id.bdb has 286Mb in size.
When checking the first server we note that slapd is using ~4.0Gb of
memory (RES). The problem is the second server, where all 11 consumers
points to. Slapd in this server is using ~18.0Gb of memory (RES). We are
using syncrepl to synchronize the 11 consumers with the 2nd server
(RefreshandPersist). Openldap´s compile options are identical in both
servers. Same for OS (Fedora 13 - x86_64 fully updated) and packages.
Any ideas to reduce memory usage in the second server ?
Regards,
Claudio Cuqui
3:31 p.m.
I think the real question here is: what replication strategy will make
supplier server consume less memory: Syncrepl - pushing records from
supplier to consumers ? Consumers pulling records from supplier via
syncrepl ? Delta-syncrepl pushing records from supplier to consumers ?
Consumers pulling records from supplier via Delta-syncrepl ?
Regards,
Claudio Cuqui
Claudio Cuqui wrote:
Hi there !
We are using two LDAP servers providers (openldap 2.4.23) in mirror
mode: one just to receive modifies and the other, just to be
"consumed" by 11 consumer servers. Both servers have almost 1MM
objects with 10kb in size each. Id2entry.bdb has 21Gb and dn2id.bdb
has 286Mb in size. When checking the first server we note that slapd
is using ~4.0Gb of memory (RES). The problem is the second server,
where all 11 consumers points to. Slapd in this server is using
~18.0Gb of memory (RES). We are using syncrepl to synchronize the 11
consumers with the 2nd server (RefreshandPersist). Openldap´s compile
options are identical in both servers. Same for OS (Fedora 13 - x86_64
fully updated) and packages.
Any ideas to reduce memory usage in the second server ?
Regards,
Claudio Cuqui
3:39 p.m.
--On Tuesday, October 05, 2010 7:31 PM -0300 Claudio Cuqui
<claudio(a)c3systems.com.br> wrote:
I think the real question here is: what replication strategy will
make
supplier server consume less memory: Syncrepl - pushing records from
supplier to consumers ? Consumers pulling records from supplier via
syncrepl ? Delta-syncrepl pushing records from supplier to consumers ?
Consumers pulling records from supplier via Delta-syncrepl ?
delta syncrepl will use the least amount of memory on the provider, as long
as all the replicas remain current and don't go into refresh mode.
However, that gives you the overhead of running two databases on the
supplier. I've found it more reliable overall, but you lose MMR and Mirror
Mode support.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount
Principal Software Engineer
Zimbra, Inc
--------------------
Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
4074
days inactive
4079
days old
openldap-technical@openldap.org
2 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
Claudio Cuqui -
Quanah Gibson-Mount