|
Hi Mark,
OS = CentOS 7.6.1810 Kernel = 3.10.0-957.1.3
I have access to the logs, just cannot port them over to this side of the network. :-)
Paul M. Whitney, RHCSA,
CISSP
Chesapeake IT Consulting, Inc. 2680 Tobacco Rd Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732 Work: 443-492-2872 Cell: 410.493.9448 Email: paul.whitney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
The information contained in this facsimile or electronic message is confidential information intended for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this facsimile message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If this message contains non-public personal information about any consumer or customer of the sender or intended recipient, you are further prohibited under penalty of law from using or disclosing the information to any third party by provisions of the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. If you have received this facsimile or electronic message in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return or destroy the original message to assure that it is not read, copied, or distributed by others. From: Mark Reynolds <mreynolds@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2019 11:38:15 AM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project.; Paul Whitney; William Brown Subject: Re: [389-users] Re: Problem with userRoot cache Hey Paul,
On 1/16/19 10:14 AM, Paul Whitney wrote:
What OS?
Well setting autosize to zero and explicitly setting the cache attributes is all it should take for it to stick
Start here: http://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/autotuning.html (checkout the manual tuning section)
You can tune the autosizing to use more cache, but it is uniform across all backends: groupRoot and userRoot would use the same values.
The logs would say why the server thinks it needs to resize your caches (a bug?), but it sounds like autosizing is not the issue here since it is set to zero. I'm not sure what else I can offer up without more log information. I suspect the server is not
properly detecting the 64gigs of memory, and thinks you have much less, which is why it's downsizing the cache values. This is all speculation without being able to look at the errors log (during startup). I find it very odd you can not get access to your
own logs, it's such a vital part of the server, you should really get that addressed or else we can't really help you :(
Regards, Mark
|
_______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
