Thank you, Thierry,
the operation that is affecting the memory is a simple query: (objectclass=person), which affects every account. This is a standard query we used to use daily for a couple of years with no issues, until lately.
The password scheme we use is SSHA512, did not change (I am not seeing PBKDF2-SHA512 option via Apache studio).
For 5440, we use memberof a lot, and with "uniqueMember" and "member" membership attributes, it is updated every day on every account.
Shortly I intend use valgrind, as you suggest below.
From: Thierry Bordaz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <email@example.com>
Date: Monday, April 17, 2023 at 8:43 AM
To: "General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project." <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Casey Feskens <email@example.com>
Subject: [389-users] Re: 389 DS memory growth
I did some rapid tests around password update and memory consumption was stable.
Did you identify what kind of operation that triggered the growth.
You may use  to setup the instance with valgrind
On 4/17/23 09:35, Thierry Bordaz wrote:
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 ?
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.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2023 at 6:07 PM Nazarenko, Alexander <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
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 220.127.116.11-17.el7_9 to version 18.104.22.168-1.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?
389-users mailing list -- email@example.com
To unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org
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://email@example.com
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Casey Feskens <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Director of Infrastructure Services
Willamette Integrated Technology Services
Willamette University, Salem, OR
Phone: (503) 370-6950
_______________________________________________389-users mailing list -- email@example.comTo unsubscribe send an email to firstname.lastname@example.orgFedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelinesList Archives: https://email@example.comDo not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Post a Comment