Hi Claas,
I was wrong stating that I reproduced locally similar issue. I was not using 2.0.17 and was reproducing an issue related to nsslapd-idlistscanlimit that is much larger in recent 2.x versions
I tried to mimic "Our environment has about 100k entries, about
15k users and about 10k groups. Also big groups with thousand of
users, also users with thousand of group membership. So I would
call it a small instance".
I made a given user an uniquemember of 1000 groups. Each group
having 1000 users. Then the search retrieves the 1000 groups DN.
Could you share your dse.ldif (send me directly) ? Also could you confirm you see the same perf hit with regular connection bound as "cn=directory manager" ?
best regards
thierry
On 3/14/23 14:25, Claas Vieler wrote:
Hallo Thierry,got newest version from https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base dc565fd (389-Directory/2.3.2 B2023.073.0958 )I can confirm, manageDSAit makes no difference any more in query time,got etimes with 0,9 sec after import and reindexing (with and without option)but a little difference to 1.4.x ist still present :) ( 0.0x sec vs 0.9 sec)thanks and best regardsClaasGesendet: Montag, 13. März 2023 um 17:55 Uhr
Von: "Thierry Bordaz" <tbordaz@xxxxxxxxxx>
An: 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [389-users] Re: 2.x query performance problemHi 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
thierryOn 3/13/23 17:18, Claas Vieler wrote:_______________________________________________ 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_issueHello 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
_______________________________________________ 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
