Thank you, it helps, much appreciated.
- Alex
From: Mark Reynolds <mareynol@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Friday, April 21, 2023 at 5:19 PM
To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Nazarenko, Alexander" <alexander_nazarenko@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Casey Feskens <cfeskens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [389-users] Re: 389 DS memory growth
On 4/21/23 2:18 PM, Nazarenko, Alexander wrote:
Hi, Thierry,
Where can I see the relation between 389 DS 7.9.* versions and 1.3.* versions of 389-ds-base to keep track of the expected changes?
This is comparing upstream verses downstream. It's not so straightforward:
Downstream (search for 389-ds-base) on
https://brewweb.engineering.redhat.com/brew/
For example;
https://brewweb.engineering.redhat.com/brew/buildinfo?buildID=2386883
Upstream you can do git log on the 1.3.x tags:
$ git clone
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base.git ; cd 389-ds-base
$ git checkout 389-ds-base-1.3.11.1
$ git log --oneline
HTH,
Mark
Thank you,
- Alex
Hi,
Thanks for raising this issue. Actually the version is an upgrade of 389 7.9.18 to 7.9.21. It contains only 3 bug fixes
- 5497: boolean attribute should be case insensitive
- 5440: memberof can be slow when multiple membership attribute are defined
- 5565: support of PBKDF2-SHA512 in 7.9
The usual option would be to use valgrind to debug the leak. Because of the limited list of bug we can also try to eliminate candidate. I think the first one looks safe. For 5440, do you use memberof and with how many membership attributes. For 5565, what
is your default password storage scheme ? if it is PBKDF2-SHA512, could you set it to PBKDF2-SHA256 and monitor memory consumption ?
[1]
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/5497
[2]
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/5440
[3]
https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/5565
best regards
thierry
On 4/17/23 05:38, Casey Feskens wrote:
We’ve been experiencing similar memory growth. I’ve had to quadruple RAM on our ldap hosts, but things seem stable there. Still unsure what the cause is. Glad to hear at least that someone else is seeing the same issue, so I can perhaps
rule out an environmental change.
Hello colleagues,
On March 22nd we updated the 389-ds-base.x86_64 and 389-ds-base-libs.x86_64 packages on our eight RHEL 7.9 production servers from version 1.3.10.2-17.el7_9
to version 1.3.11.1-1.el7_9. We also updated the kernel from kernel 3.10.0-1160.80.1.el7.x86_64 to kernel-3.10.0-1160.88.1.el7.x86_64 during the same update.
Approximately 12 days later, on April 3rd, all the hosts started exhibiting memory growth issues whereby the “slapd” process was using over 90% of the
available system memory of 32GB, which was NOT happening for a couple of years prior to applying any of the available package updates on the systems.
Two of the eight hosts act as Primaries (formerly referred to as masters), while 6 of the hosts act as read-only replicas. Three of the read-only replicas
are used by our authorization system while the other three read-only replicas are used by customer-based applications.
Currently we use system controls to restrict the memory usage.
My question is whether this is something that other users also experience, and what is the recommended way to stabilize the DS servers in this type of
situation?
Thanks,
- Alex
_______________________________________________
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
--
---------------------------------------------
Casey Feskens <cfeskens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Director of Infrastructure Services
Willamette Integrated Technology Services
Willamette University, Salem, OR
Phone: (503) 370-6950
---------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
--
Directory Server Development Team
