Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > 2010/8/3 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>> > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > > > 2010/8/2 Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx > <mailto:rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx>>> > > > > Juan Asensio Sánchez wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I am trying to tune the performance of the Directory > Server. We have > > > increased the memory for the database cache and for each > database > > > entry cache. These are the new values: > > > > > > cn=config, cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > > nsslapd-dbcachesize: 838860800 (~800MB) > > > > > > cn=*,cn=ldbm database, cn=plugins, cn=config > > > nsslapd-cachememsize: 125829120 (~120MB) > > > > > > We have 27 databases, and the servers have 16 GB of RAM, > so the > > server > > > should be able to handle all that memory (800 + 120*27 = > > 4040MB). But > > > when I go to the monitoring section of the management > console, the > > > database cache says the hit ratio is 99% (this is OK according > > to the > > > documentation, near 100%), but the entry cache is 0%, that is > > very far > > > for 100% that the documentation recomends (see screenshots > > attached). > > > Am I confused or the configuration is not correct? > > When you start out with an empty cache, the cache hit ratio > will be 0 > > until entries get into the cache and are pulled from the > cache rather > > than the database. > > > > Try doing a search like ldapsearch ... -b "basesuffixofdatabase" > > "objectclass=*" > > > > > > > > > Well, the servers are running for a long time, not only a days. > I have > > done that search, but the "Entry cache hit ratio" remains 0. I have > > also noticed that "Current entry cache size (in entries)" is only > > 4168, even after the search, although out directory cointains about > > 50000 entries. Is this normal? > We also recently fixed a bug with the cache size calculation. What > platform? What 389-ds-base version? 32-bit or 64-bit? > > > > > All servers are upgraded to 1.2.5 version, under CentOS 5.5 x86 (32 > bit). Which is that bug? Is it in Bugzilla? \ Not sure, but I seem to recall this problem being fixed (perhaps as part of another bug fix) in 1.2.6. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > -- > 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
