Hi Class,
First, thank you sooo much for your tests. This is really
helpful.
So my understanding is that this same req was
- [10, 30]ms in 1.4
- [900, 1700]ms in 2.x
- A possibility is that the filter evaluation (against the 532 returned entry) is the responsible of the 1700ms (without manageDSAit
In short it looks like there is a significant (>30 times
slower) regression in RHDS12 vs RHDS11 with that testcase. In
RHDS12, the handling of referral adds a 2 times slower but it is
possibly fixed with
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/5598.
best regards
thierry
On 3/13/23 17:18, Claas Vieler wrote:
Hello William,sorry, your mail was stuck in my spam filter, so I doesnt see ithere are the logs with and without option manageDSAit (as Thierry mentioned)without manageDSAit:
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:06.583644293 +0100] conn=32 fd=64 slot=64 connection from local to /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-389ds/slapd-389ds.socket
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:06.586619267 +0100] conn=32 AUTOBIND dn="cn=root"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:06.589037720 +0100] conn=32 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root" method=sasl version=3 mech=EXTERNAL
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:06.591155242 +0100] conn=32 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 wtime=0.000078559 optime=0.004658221 etime=0.004734544 dn="cn=root"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:06.591326840 +0100] conn=32 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 filter="(uniqueMember=cn=testuser,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com)" attrs="distinguishedName"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:08.321020181 +0100] conn=32 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=532 wtime=0.000114773 optime=1.729694222 etime=1.729803880
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:08.321992532 +0100] conn=32 op=2 UNBIND
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:08.327041073 +0100] conn=32 op=2 fd=64 closed error - U1with manageDSAit:
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:22.324132867 +0100] conn=33 fd=64 slot=64 connection from local to /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-389ds/slapd-389ds.socket
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:22.326616612 +0100] conn=33 AUTOBIND dn="cn=root"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:22.328594648 +0100] conn=33 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root" method=sasl version=3 mech=EXTERNAL
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:22.331154393 +0100] conn=33 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 wtime=0.000055269 optime=0.004608598 etime=0.004661499 dn="cn=root"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:22.331366318 +0100] conn=33 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 filter="(uniqueMember=cn=testuser,ou=People,dc=expample,dc=com)" attrs="distinguishedName"
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:23.244139238 +0100] conn=33 op=2 UNBIND
[13/Mar/2023:16:16:23.244725555 +0100] conn=33 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=532 wtime=0.000081512 optime=0.913360154 etime=0.913438519
[1Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. März 2023 um 01:11 Uhr
Von: "William Brown" <william.brown@xxxxxxxx>
An: "389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Betreff: [389-users] Re: 2.x query performance problem>
> Hi Claas,
> I do not recall a specific change 1.4.4 vs 2.0 that could explain this.
> Do you confirm that 'uniqueMember' is indexed in equality on both ? What are the SRCH records in the access logs (notes=A ?).
> On 2.0, it lasts 2sec, you may try to capture few pstacks that would give some tips.
> regards
> thierry
we need to see the exact filter that's being used, as well as the access logs lines of the slow query to really help here.
--
Sincerely,
William Brown
Senior Software Engineer,
Identity and Access Management
SUSE Labs, Australia
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
_______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
