On 8/14/2020 9:04 AM, Ben Spencer wrote:
After a little investigation I didn't find any recent information on
how well / linearly 389 scales from a CPU perspective. I also realize
this is a more complicated topic with many factors which actually play
into it.
Throwing the basic question out there: Does 389 scale fairly
linearly as the number of CPUs are increased? Is there a point where
it drops off?
Cached reads (cached anywhere : filesystem cache, db page pool, entry
cache) should scale quite well, at least to 4/6/8 CPU. I'm not sure
about today's 8+ CPU systems but would assume probably not great scaling
beyond 8 until proven otherwise.
Writes are going to be heavily serialized, assume no CPU scaling. Fast
I/O is what you need for write throughput.
Where am I going with this?
We are faced with either adding more CPUs to the existing servers or
adding more instances or a combination of the two. The current servers
have 10 CPU with the entire database fitting in RAM but, there is a
regular flow of writes. Sometimes somewhat heavy thanks to batch
updates. Gut feeling tells me to have more servers than a few huge
servers largely because of the writes/updates and lock contention.
Needing to balance the server sprawl as well.
I'd look at whether I/O throughput (Write IOPS particularly) can be
upgraded as a first step. Then perhaps look at system design to see if
the batch updates can be throttled/trickled to reduce the cross-traffic
interference. Usually the write load is the limiting factor scaling
because it has to be replayed on every server regardless of its read
workload.
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
