Hello Thierry, sorry for my short reply, i am not in the office this week. I can confirm that all my test run several times, the first run is always slower because of the empty cache. The mentioned results are all average values without first run. The problem occured on all tested 2.x versions. I found it on 2.0.17 but can also observe it also on newest 2.3.2. Next week I can send you the dse.ldif for analysis. best regards Claas Gesendet: Montag, 27. März 2023 um 11:26 Uhr Von: "Thierry Bordaz" <tbordaz@xxxxxxxxxx> An: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Claas Vieler" <claas21@xxxxxxxxx> Betreff: [389-users] Re: 2.x query performance problem Hi Claas, Rereading that thread I have a doubt regarding cache priming. The search returns ~500 groups. The first lookup of those groups is significantly longer because of entry cache priming. Could you confirm that if you do twice the same search (1.4 and 2.x), the second search in 1.4 is much faster that the second search on 2.x ? best regards thierry On 3/16/23 09:38, Claas Vieler wrote: Hello William I cant see any difference expect duration best regards Claas 389-Directory/2.3.2 B2023.073.0958 [16/Mar/2023:08:24:51.321404978 +0100] conn=51 fd=66 slot=66 connection from local to /run/slapd-389ds.socket [16/Mar/2023:08:24:51.323985845 +0100] conn=51 AUTOBIND dn="cn=root" [16/Mar/2023:08:24:51.325995690 +0100] conn=51 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root" method=sasl version=3 mech=EXTERNAL [16/Mar/2023:08:24:51.328098136 +0100] conn=51 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 wtime=0.000082030 optime=0.004197632 etime=0.004276581 dn="cn=root" [16/Mar/2023:08:24:51.328272655 +0100] conn=51 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 filter="(uniqueMember=cn=testuser1,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com)" attrs="distinguishedName" [16/Mar/2023:08:24:52.285988416 +0100] conn=51 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=532 wtime=0.000077055 optime=0.957714945 etime=0.957784949 [16/Mar/2023:08:24:52.286275743 +0100] conn=51 op=2 UNBIND [16/Mar/2023:08:24:52.291936625 +0100] conn=51 op=2 fd=66 Disconnect - Cleanly Closed Connection - U1 389-Directory/1.4.4.19 B2022.313.1200 [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.353075132 +0100] conn=101 fd=64 slot=64 connection from local to /var/lib/dirsrv/slapd-389ds/slapd-389ds.socket [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.355714488 +0100] conn=101 AUTOBIND dn="cn=root" [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.357681511 +0100] conn=101 op=0 BIND dn="cn=root" method=sasl version=3 mech=EXTERNAL [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.359700165 +0100] conn=101 op=0 RESULT err=0 tag=97 nentries=0 wtime=0.000036305 optime=0.004064382 etime=0.004098191 dn="cn=root" [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.359896870 +0100] conn=101 op=1 SRCH base="dc=example,dc=com" scope=2 filter="(uniqueMember=cn=testuser1,ou=People,dc=example,dc=com)" attrs="distinguishedName" [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.367652447 +0100] conn=101 op=1 RESULT err=0 tag=101 nentries=532 wtime=0.000077477 optime=0.007755733 etime=0.007830994 [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.369055287 +0100] conn=101 op=2 UNBIND [16/Mar/2023:09:10:20.371940374 +0100] conn=101 op=2 fd=64 closed error - U1 Gesendet: Mittwoch, 15. März 2023 um 03:41 Uhr Von: "William Brown" <william.brown@xxxxxxxx>[mailto:william.brown@xxxxxxxx] An: "389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"[mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>[mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Betreff: [389-users] Re: 2.x query performance problem > got newest version from https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base[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) Can we see the access log between the 1.4.x and 2.x version? There still seems to be a difference here which is curious :( -- Sincerely, William Brown Senior Software Engineer, Identity and Access Management SUSE Labs, Australia _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/] List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines] List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue[https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue] _______________________________________________ 389-users mailing list -- 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[mailto:389-users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/] List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines] List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue[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/[https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/] List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines[https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines] List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue[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
