Not for now. I need to get an answer for 1.1.2, which means I need to find a way to work around it for now. When this is done, I can have a look at 1.2.5. -Reinhard -----Original Message----- From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich Megginson Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 6:04 PM To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. Subject: Re: [389-users] Skipped request ... Reinhard Nappert wrote: > Hi Rick, > > I attached access and error file with debug level 8. The server does not respond to any requests anymore. If you kill the client, it responds afterwards. > > Let me know, what you see. > I don't see anything obvious. One thing I do know is that this code has been improved since 1.1.2 (especially the debugging, which not very usefully prints the file descriptor addresses in int format :P) I don't suppose you could try to reproduce this with 1.2.5? > Thanks, > -Reinhard > > -----Original Message----- > From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich > Megginson > Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 1:10 PM > To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. > Subject: Re: [389-users] Skipped request ... > > Reinhard Nappert wrote: > >> Rich, which debugging level do you suggest? Apparently, I tried to much, because it would crash the server constantly. >> > Debugging levels should not crash the server - can provide more information about the crash? > >> For now, I go just with 8 (Connection Management). Seeing the problem, what would you enable? >> >> > Yes, start with 8. > >> Thanks, >> -Reinhard >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich >> Megginson >> Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2010 6:50 PM >> To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. >> Subject: Re: [389-users] Skipped request ... >> >> Reinhard Nappert wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Rich, >>> >>> I ran some further tests. This entire thing looks kind of weird. I have a kind of monitoring tool, I use to figure out if the server still responds in a timely manner. This tool performs an anonymous bind and reads a specific object, every 30 seconds. >>> >>> >> Does it perform an unbind operation? Does it disconnect the socket? >> >> >>> What I see is that the server responds to the incoming request and it performs about 500 requests within those 30 seconds. Then, I see, when the next monitoring connection request comes is, but I never see the bind. Since this times out, the monitoring tool restarts the server after a while (about 10 seconds). >>> >>> Here are the logs in access: >>> [11/May/2010:22:12:20 -0400] conn=94 fd=83 slot=83 connection from >>> 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 >>> [11/May/2010:22:13:24 -0400] conn=0 fd=64 slot=64 SSL connection >>> from >>> 10.227.6.45 to 10.227.6.53 >>> >>> So, you see the server does not respond to any requests after >>> [11/May/2010:22:12:20 -0400] conn=94 fd=83 slot=83 connection from >>> 127.0.0.1 to 127.0.0.1 >>> >>> And start responding, once it was restarted: >>> [11/May/2010:22:13:24 -0400] conn=0 fd=64 slot=64 SSL connection >>> from >>> 10.227.6.45 to 10.227.6.53 >>> >>> I was wondering , if we could get somehow some debugging out of ns-slapd, once it is in this state (truss or something else). >>> >>> >>> >> http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ#Troubleshooting >> If that produces too much error log output, or kills the performance, >> you can also try replacing the error log with a named pipe+script - >> http://directory.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Named_Pipe_Log_Script >> man ds-logpipe.py >> >> >>> Any help is appreciated. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Reinhard >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: 389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> [mailto:389-users-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rich >>> Megginson >>> Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 5:21 PM >>> To: General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. >>> Subject: Re: [389-users] Skipped request ... >>> >>> Reinhard Nappert wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I have seen a weird behavior of my DS (1.1.2). It has a very small >>>> database (only about 2300 objects). A client performed a one-level >>>> search retrieving the children. The server find 114 objects, but >>>> the search was very slow: >>>> >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:11 +0000] conn=127 op=149 SRCH base=<base> >>>> scope=1 filter="(&(&(objectClass=<xyz>)(<att1>=value))(!(<att2>=TRUE)))" >>>> >>>> yes, the filter is a bit complex, but both attribute types <att1> >>>> and <att2> are indexed. This search usually is fast. It looks to me >>>> that the server is already in a funny state. >>>> ... >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:17 +0000] conn=127 op=149 RESULT err=3 tag=101 >>>> nentries=114 etime=7 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> err=3 is TIMELIMIT_EXCEEDED - that's probably why you aren't getting all of the results you expect, and could be why it's skipping the op. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> When the client gets the results, it iterates over those and gets >>>> its children, like: >>>> >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:17 +0000] conn=127 op=150 SRCH base=<dn of >>>> result from previous SRCH> scope=1 >>>> filter="(&(&(objectClass=<uvw>)(<attr3>=*))(!(<attr2>=TRUE)))" attrs=ALL. >>>> Those searches are quick: >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:17 +0000] conn=127 op=150 RESULT err=0 tag=101 >>>> nentries=1 etime=0 >>>> >>>> but somehow the server does not process on of the requests, when >>>> the client iterates over the results: >>>> >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:18 +0000] conn=127 op=263 SRCH base=<dn of >>>> result from previous SRCH> scope=1 >>>> filter="(&(&(objectClass=<uvw>)(<attr3>=*))(!(<attr2>=TRUE)))" attrs=ALL. >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:18 +0000] conn=127 op=263 RESULT err=0 tag=101 >>>> nentries=1 etime=0 >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:26 +0000] conn=127 op=265 SRCH base=<dn of >>>> result from previous SRCH> scope=1 >>>> filter="(&(&(objectClass=<uvw>)(<attr3>=*))(!(<attr2>=TRUE)))" attrs=ALL. >>>> [06/May/2010:12:23:26 +0000] conn=127 op=265 RESULT err=0 tag=101 >>>> nentries=0 etime=0 You can see that the server skipped op=264. It >>>> looks to me that the request came in, but somehow the server joked >>>> up, before it could log the request in access. >>>> >>>> Has anybody seen such a behavior before? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Reinhard >>>> >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> - >>>> -- >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 389 users mailing list >>>> 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> 389 users mailing list >>> 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >>> -- >>> 389 users mailing list >>> 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users >> >> > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > -- > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
