Fedora Info

Saturday, October 12, 2024

[Test-Announce]Fedora 41 Branched 20241012.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 41 Branched 20241012.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
python-blivet - 20241009.n.0: python-blivet-3.11.0-2.fc41.src, 20241012.n.0: python-blivet-3.11.0-3.fc41.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/41

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241012.n.0_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
--
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
--
_______________________________________________
test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave@lists.fedoraproject.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

Friday, October 11, 2024

[Test-Announce]Fedora Linux 41 Final Go/No-Go Meeting on Thursday 17th Oct

Hi all,

The Fedora Linux 41 Final Go/No-Go meeting[1] will be held next Thursday, 17th October @ 1700 UTC in #meeting:fedoraproject.org on Matrix.

At this time, we will determine the status of the F41 Final for the current target
date[2] of Tuesday October 22nd. For more information about the Go/No-Go meeting, see the wiki[3].

[1] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/meeting/10917

[2] https://fedorapeople.org/groups/schedule/f-41/f-41-key-tasks.html

[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Go_No_Go_Meeting

Aoife Moloney

Fedora Operations Architect

Fedora Project

Matrix: @amoloney:fedora.im

IRC: amoloney

Thursday, October 10, 2024

[Test-Announce][Test Days] Fedora Virt and Upgrade happening NOW!

Hey Folks,

As the GA date comes closer; we are trying to test the last few bits in Fedora. Fedora

takes pride in smooth upgrades and to ensure this we host Upgrade Test Day[0].

This time we are hosting it from 2024-10-11 through 2024-10-15. This installment

of test day is, however, a bit special, we are not only looking for experience with Upgrade

but also if things like DNF5 plugins remain functional after upgrading to F41 from F39 and

F40. Some plugin functionalities are WIP[1] and feedback about the rest will be highly appreciated.

Virt is a very integral part of the OS. QA team is hosting a Virt Test Days starting 2024-10-11 through 2024-10-13. Please participate and help us iron out bugs before the release date.

As usual, we will be addressing questions over the test day channel and you can find the

events on fedocal too

a) Upgrade Test Day[3]

b) Virt Test Day[4]

[0] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2024-10-11_F41_Upgrade_Test_Day

[1] https://github.com/rpm-software-management/dnf5/issues/389

[2] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2024-10-11_Virtualization

[3] https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/QA/#m10913
[4]https://calendar.fedoraproject.org/QA/#m10912

//sumantro

Fedora QE

TRIED AND PERSONALLY TESTED, ERGO TRUSTED

Wednesday, October 9, 2024

[Test-Announce]Fedora-IoT 41 RC 20241009.2 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora-IoT 41 RC 20241009.2. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/41iot

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_41_RC_20241009.2_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora-IoT_41_RC_20241009.2_General

Thank you for testing!
--
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
--
_______________________________________________
test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave@lists.fedoraproject.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[389-users] Re: Inconsistent Ldap connection issues

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:36 AM Joe Fletcher <jfletche@sscinc.com> wrote:

Just a thought: what are the open files limits set to on the system?

I've seen plenty of cases where increasing descriptor limits can help in these instances.

From: Thierry Bordaz via 389-users <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 10:30 AM
To: Gary Waters <gwaters@caltech.edu>; General discussion list for the 389 Directory server project. <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org>; Marc Sauton <msauton@redhat.com>; James Chapman <jachapma@redhat.com>
Cc: gwaters-web@caltech.edu; Thierry Bordaz <tbordaz@redhat.com>
Subject: [389-users] Re: Inconsistent Ldap connection issues

**** The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin. ****

Hi Gary,

My understanding is that a single client opens ~10K connections in ~6min, that is an average of 26 connections per second. It creates a set of established connections that spike up to 961 parallel connections. The problem being that from time to time the client reports 'can not contact LDAP server' and while you are running 2.4 this problem did not occur in 1.4.3. Am I correct ?

My first guess is that Marc is correct and tuning of tcp param should be the culprit. Now it does not explain why it occurs only in 2.4 but may be you were running 1.4.3 on RHEL7 and are running 2.4 on RHEL8.

2.4 contains significant changes around that area. I do not recall all commit in connection handling side. AFAIK what is "new" is a dedicated listener thread (polling on ports 389/636/ldapi for new connections) and a multiple polling threads (polling the established connections)
My understanding is that your problem impacts the listener thread as it is responsible to accept new connections and it is the new problem you detect in 2.4. @james did I miss something ?

JC: There has been a lot of work around connection management around this version, the "accept" thread that is responsible for polling the ldap/ldaps ports for connection attempts was introduced in a previous version. This thread will fail to accept a new connection when the number of existing connections hits a certain limit. However, when this happens you should see this message in the error logs: "Not listening for new connections - too many fds open", so IMHO I think the error message you see is related to something else.

If the culprit is not in TCP tuning, @james do you remember known bugs that would limit the listener thread ?

JC: I failed to reproduce this issue locally with the same version and file descriptor limit (8192) and 10k connections. So I am not aware of anything else that might cause this error message.

best regards
thierry

On 10/8/24 7:36 PM, Gary Waters wrote:

Hi Thierry,

Ah yes of course. Here is 1 run of their web app load test, it is 6 minutes long, and it should mostly be only the test it self. I will start looking for

We encountered 2 "Can not contact ldap server" errors during this run.

2 cant contact ldap server errors in this run

----------- Access Log Output ------------

Start of Logs:    08/Oct/2024:09:53:35.810833927
End of Logs:      08/Oct/2024:09:59:52.361830449

Processed Log Time: 0 Hours, 6 Minutes, 16.550998016 Seconds

Restarts:                      1
Secure Protocol Versions:
- TLS1.2 128-bit AES-GCM (9833 connections)

Peak Concurrent Connections:   689
Total Operations:              86412
Total Results:                 86412
Overall Performance:           100.0%

Total Connections:             9933          (26.38/sec) (1582.73/min)
- LDAP Connections:           9933          (26.38/sec) (1582.73/min)
- LDAPI Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
- LDAPS Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
- StartTLS Extended Ops:      9833          (26.11/sec) (1566.80/min)

Searches:                      66647         (176.99/sec) (10619.60/min)
Modifications:                 0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Adds:                          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Deletes:                       0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Mod RDNs:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Compares:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Binds:                         9932          (26.38/sec) (1582.57/min)

Average wtime (wait time):     0.001407368
Average optime (op time):      0.003186859
Average etime (elapsed time): 0.004591048

Multi-factor Authentications: 0
Proxied Auth Operations:       0
Persistent Searches:           0
Internal Operations:           0
Entry Operations:              0
Extended Operations:           9833
Abandoned Requests:            0
Smart Referrals Received:      0

VLV Operations:                0
VLV Unindexed Searches:        0
VLV Unindexed Components:      0
SORT Operations:               0

Entire Search Base Queries:    0
Paged Searches:                0
Unindexed Searches:            0
Unindexed Components:          0
Invalid Attribute Filters:     0
FDs Taken:                     9933
FDs Returned:                  9932
Highest FD Taken:              961

Broken Pipes:                  0
Connections Reset By Peer:     0
Resource Unavailable:          0
Max BER Size Exceeded:         0

Binds:                         9932
Unbinds:                       9225
-----------------------------------
- LDAP v2 Binds:              0
- LDAP v3 Binds:              9932
- AUTOBINDs(LDAPI):           0
- SSL Client Binds:           0
- Failed SSL Client Binds:    0
- SASL Binds:                 0
- Directory Manager Binds:    0
- Anonymous Binds:            99

================

After this run I bumped up these from 4096,

net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 6144
net.core.somaxconn = 6144

Yet we still get the ldap errors (this one and the start tls request error previously mentioned.)

Should I bump up the

On 10/8/24 03:47, Thierry Bordaz wrote:

Hi Gary,

I meant that the access logs covered 5hours. It would be helpful to capture/focus on the logs from the few minutes before/after the time when the problem occurred. Then check from those limited logs if there is a pattern or unexpected events (long operation, no operation, abandon, ...)

best regards
thierry

On 10/7/24 7:37 PM, Gary Waters wrote:

Hi Thierry,

Ok I ll decrease the timeout to 15 seconds then.

Reducing the size of the logs will help.

Which log and how do I do this ?

Thanks Marc and Theirry!

-Gary

On 10/7/24 00:26, Thierry Bordaz wrote:

Hi,

Those slap_poll error means that the server was unable to send back PDU to the client. It can occur if the client sends a request and does not read fast enough the results. The timeout is high 30s (30000), could it be that the problem is on the client side (app) ?

I suggest that you focus on the timestamp when the application reports a failure. Then look in the access/error logs from 1-3min before and after the time of the failure. Logconv from that limited scope will be more helpful than a global one.

The pattern looks to be an app opens a connection, switch to secure connection (start-tls), issue 6-8 SRCH then close. etime/wtime/optime looks fine but as it is an average (over 1M op) it is not helpful. Reducing the size of the logs will help.
I found interesting the abandon op as it is possibly related to a performance issue.

best regards
thierry

On 10/4/24 11:54 PM, Gary Waters via 389-users wrote:

Hi Marc,

I have made nsslapd-listen-backlog-size to 512.

For the ioblocktimeout, I increased it because of an error I was seeing:

[30/Sep/2024:16:26:55.987681019 -0700] - ERR - slapd_poll - (743) - Timed out
[30/Sep/2024:16:34:49.646922635 -0700] - ERR - slapd_poll - (568) - Timed out

Googling stated that I should increase the ioblocktimeout. So I bumped it up from 20000 to 30000.

Since then, those slapd_poll timed out errors have not occurred. Should I have changed something else?

What should I increase these to?

net.core.somaxconn = 4096
net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 4096

Thanks so much for your help!

-Gary

On 10/4/24 11:55, Marc Sauton wrote:

tune up nsslapd-listen-backlog-size

and verify the net.core.somaxconn and net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog are high enough ( sysctl -a )

possibly tune down the nsslapd-ioblocktimeout value

Thanks,

M.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:06 AM gwaters-web--- via 389-users <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:

Hello,

We are experiencing a new issue since we upgraded from 389-ds-base from
1.4~ish to 2.0.15 on RHEL 8. I couldnt figure how to fix it, so I
switched to RHEL9 and are on 2.4.5-9.

The issue is during a performance load test of a web application. The
app logs into a website and does some things that searches against ldap,
and does some transactions. This app has been performing fine for years,
the app has changed so it could be something there, but I am not sure
about that because of the percentage of the traffic that is successful.

The errors for the web app are "Can't contact Ldap Server" and sometimes
"Can't contact LDAP server. Start TLS request accepted.Server willing to
negotiate SSL. (0xFFFF [-1])". Out of the 128k connections below, these
errors will happen like 5 or 6 times, so its wildly inconsistent and random.

I did a logconv analysis with 6 hours of a day of testing, see below.
One thing that really stood out to me was the peak concurrent
connections = 22.. That peak is so low, I dont know how these errors are
happening.

I dont see any errors in the access log ( grepping for err=1).
I looked for cache warnings/errors in the access/errors logs, but didnt
find any. I dont see things like unavailable connections in the access logs.

Suggestions on what to change or look for in the logs ?

Thanks,
Gary

information:
Machine Size: 16G of ram, 4 core AMD (its an EC2.m5.large, gp3 disk type)

kernel:
Linux 5.14.0-427.35.1.el9_4.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
packages:
389-ds-base-libs-2.4.5-9.el9_4.x86_64
389-ds-base-2.4.5-9.el9_4.x86_64

single instance of dirsrv running
dirsrv modifcations from default:

nsslapd-logging-backend: dirsrv-log,syslog
nsslapd-maxdescriptors: 8192
nsslapd-listen-backlog-size: 256
nsslapd-allow-hashed-passwords: on
nsslapd-idletimeout: 30
nsslapd-ioblocktimeout: 30000
nsslapd-sizelimit: -1
nsslapd-auditlog-logging-enabled: off
nsslapd-lookthroughlimit: -1

dirsrv.systemd:
limitNOFILE=8192

>Total Log Lines Analszed: 2694287
>
>
>
> ---------- Access Log Output ------------
>
> Start of Logs:    26/Sep/2024:10:07:32.089983378
> End of Logs:      26/Sep/2024:15:54:29.895403688
>
> Processed Log Time: 5 Hours, 46 Minutes, 57.805426688 Seconds
>
> Restarts:                      0
> Secure Protocol Versions:
>   - TLS1.2 128-bit AES-GCM (123117 connections)
>
> Peak Concurrent Connections:   22
> Total Operations:              1097043
> Total Results:                 1097044
> Overall Performance:           100.0%
>
> Total Connections:             128646        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
> - LDAP Connections:           128646        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
> - LDAPI Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> - LDAPS Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> - StartTLS Extended Ops:      123116        (5.91/sec) (354.84/min)
>
> Searches:                      845279        (40.60/sec) (2436.22/min)
> Modifications:                 0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Adds:                          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Deletes:                       0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Mod RDNs:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Compares:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Binds:                         128647        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
>
> Average wtime (wait time):     0.001560856
> Average optime (op time):      0.003310453
> Average etime (elapsed time): 0.004868040
>
> Multi-factor Authentications: 0
> Proxied Auth Operations:       0
> Persistent Searches:           0
> Internal Operations:           0
> Entry Operations:              0
> Extended Operations:           123116
> Abandoned Requests:            1
> Smart Referrals Received:      0
>
> VLV Operations:                0
> VLV Unindexed Searches:        0
> VLV Unindexed Components:      0
> SORT Operations:               0
>
> Entire Search Base Queries:    0
> Paged Searches:                0
> Unindexed Searches:            0
> Unindexed Components:          0
> Invalid Attribute Filters:     0
> FDs Taken:                     128646
> FDs Returned:                  129318
> Highest FD Taken:              968
>
> Broken Pipes:                  0
> Connections Reset By Peer:     0
> Resource Unavailable:          0
> Max BER Size Exceeded:         0
>
> Binds:                         128647
> Unbinds:                       119206
> -------------------------------------
> - LDAP v2 Binds:              0
> - LDAP v3 Binds:              128647
> - AUTOBINDs(LDAPI):           0
> - SSL Client Binds:           0
> - Failed SSL Client Binds:    0
> - SASL Binds:                 0
> - Dir

--
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Test-Announce]Fedora 41 Branched 20241009.n.0 nightly compose nominated for testing

Announcing the creation of a new nightly release validation test event
for Fedora 41 Branched 20241009.n.0. Please help run some tests for this
nightly compose if you have time. For more information on nightly
release validation testing, see:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Release_validation_test_plan

Notable package version changes:
anaconda - 20241003.n.1: anaconda-41.31-1.fc41.src, 20241009.n.0: anaconda-41.33-1.fc41.src
pykickstart - 20241003.n.1: pykickstart-3.58-1.fc41.src, 20241009.n.0: pykickstart-3.58-3.fc41.src

Test coverage information for the current release can be seen at:
https://openqa.fedoraproject.org/testcase_stats/41

You can see all results, find testing instructions and image download
locations, and enter results on the Summary page:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Summary

The individual test result pages are:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Installation
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Base
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Server
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Cloud
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Desktop
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Results:Fedora_41_Branched_20241009.n.0_Security_Lab

Thank you for testing!
--
Mail generated by relvalconsumer: https://pagure.io/fedora-qa/relvalconsumer
--
_______________________________________________
test-announce mailing list -- test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to test-announce-leave@lists.fedoraproject.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[389-users] Re: Inconsistent Ldap connection issues

Hi Gary,

My understanding is that a single client opens ~10K connections in ~6min, that is an average of 26 connections per second. It creates a set of established connections that spike up to 961 parallel connections. The problem being that from time to time the client reports 'can not contact LDAP server' and while you are running 2.4 this problem did not occur in 1.4.3. Am I correct ?

My first guess is that Marc is correct and tuning of tcp param should be the culprit. Now it does not explain why it occurs only in 2.4 but may be you were running 1.4.3 on RHEL7 and are running 2.4 on RHEL8.

2.4 contains significant changes around that area. I do not recall all commit in connection handling side. AFAIK what is "new" is a dedicated listener thread (polling on ports 389/636/ldapi for new connections) and a multiple polling threads (polling the established connections)
My understanding is that your problem impacts the listener thread as it is responsible to accept new connections and it is the new problem you detect in 2.4. @james did I miss something ?

If the culprit is not in TCP tuning, @james do you remember known bugs that would limit the listener thread ?

best regards
thierry

On 10/8/24 7:36 PM, Gary Waters wrote:

Hi Thierry,

Ah yes of course. Here is 1 run of their web app load test, it is 6 minutes long, and it should mostly be only the test it self. I will start looking for

We encountered 2 "Can not contact ldap server" errors during this run.

2 cant contact ldap server errors in this run

----------- Access Log Output ------------

Start of Logs:    08/Oct/2024:09:53:35.810833927
End of Logs:      08/Oct/2024:09:59:52.361830449

Processed Log Time: 0 Hours, 6 Minutes, 16.550998016 Seconds

Restarts:                      1
Secure Protocol Versions:
- TLS1.2 128-bit AES-GCM (9833 connections)

Peak Concurrent Connections:   689
Total Operations:              86412
Total Results:                 86412
Overall Performance:           100.0%

Total Connections:             9933          (26.38/sec) (1582.73/min)
- LDAP Connections:           9933          (26.38/sec) (1582.73/min)
- LDAPI Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
- LDAPS Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
- StartTLS Extended Ops:      9833          (26.11/sec) (1566.80/min)

Searches:                      66647         (176.99/sec) (10619.60/min)
Modifications:                 0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Adds:                          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Deletes:                       0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Mod RDNs:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Compares:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
Binds:                         9932          (26.38/sec) (1582.57/min)

Average wtime (wait time):     0.001407368
Average optime (op time):      0.003186859
Average etime (elapsed time): 0.004591048

Multi-factor Authentications: 0
Proxied Auth Operations:       0
Persistent Searches:           0
Internal Operations:           0
Entry Operations:              0
Extended Operations:           9833
Abandoned Requests:            0
Smart Referrals Received:      0

VLV Operations:                0
VLV Unindexed Searches:        0
VLV Unindexed Components:      0
SORT Operations:               0

Entire Search Base Queries:    0
Paged Searches:                0
Unindexed Searches:            0
Unindexed Components:          0
Invalid Attribute Filters:     0
FDs Taken:                     9933
FDs Returned:                  9932
Highest FD Taken:              961

Broken Pipes:                  0
Connections Reset By Peer:     0
Resource Unavailable:          0
Max BER Size Exceeded:         0

Binds:                         9932
Unbinds:                       9225
-----------------------------------
- LDAP v2 Binds:              0
- LDAP v3 Binds:              9932
- AUTOBINDs(LDAPI):           0
- SSL Client Binds:           0
- Failed SSL Client Binds:    0
- SASL Binds:                 0
- Directory Manager Binds:    0
- Anonymous Binds:            99

================

After this run I bumped up these from 4096,

net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 6144
net.core.somaxconn = 6144

Yet we still get the ldap errors (this one and the start tls request error previously mentioned.)

Should I bump up the

On 10/8/24 03:47, Thierry Bordaz wrote:

Hi Gary,

I meant that the access logs covered 5hours. It would be helpful to capture/focus on the logs from the few minutes before/after the time when the problem occurred. Then check from those limited logs if there is a pattern or unexpected events (long operation, no operation, abandon, ...)

best regards
thierry

On 10/7/24 7:37 PM, Gary Waters wrote:

Hi Thierry,

Ok I ll decrease the timeout to 15 seconds then.

Reducing the size of the logs will help.
Which log and how do I do this ?
Thanks Marc and Theirry!

-Gary

On 10/7/24 00:26, Thierry Bordaz wrote:

Hi,

Those slap_poll error means that the server was unable to send back PDU to the client. It can occur if the client sends a request and does not read fast enough the results. The timeout is high 30s (30000), could it be that the problem is on the client side (app) ?

I suggest that you focus on the timestamp when the application reports a failure. Then look in the access/error logs from 1-3min before and after the time of the failure. Logconv from that limited scope will be more helpful than a global one.

The pattern looks to be an app opens a connection, switch to secure connection (start-tls), issue 6-8 SRCH then close. etime/wtime/optime looks fine but as it is an average (over 1M op) it is not helpful. Reducing the size of the logs will help.
I found interesting the abandon op as it is possibly related to a performance issue.

best regards
thierry

On 10/4/24 11:54 PM, Gary Waters via 389-users wrote:

Hi Marc,

I have made nsslapd-listen-backlog-size to 512.

For the ioblocktimeout, I increased it because of an error I was seeing:

[30/Sep/2024:16:26:55.987681019 -0700] - ERR - slapd_poll - (743) - Timed out
[30/Sep/2024:16:34:49.646922635 -0700] - ERR - slapd_poll - (568) - Timed out

Googling stated that I should increase the ioblocktimeout. So I bumped it up from 20000 to 30000.

Since then, those slapd_poll timed out errors have not occurred. Should I have changed something else?

What should I increase these to?

net.core.somaxconn = 4096
net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog = 4096

Thanks so much for your help!

-Gary

On 10/4/24 11:55, Marc Sauton wrote:

tune up nsslapd-listen-backlog-size
and verify the net.core.somaxconn and net.ipv4.tcp_max_syn_backlog are high enough ( sysctl -a )

possibly tune down the nsslapd-ioblocktimeout value

Thanks,

M.

On Fri, Oct 4, 2024 at 11:06 AM gwaters-web--- via 389-users <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote:

Hello,

We are experiencing a new issue since we upgraded from 389-ds-base from
1.4~ish to 2.0.15 on RHEL 8. I couldnt figure how to fix it, so I
switched to RHEL9 and are on 2.4.5-9.

The issue is during a performance load test of a web application. The
app logs into a website and does some things that searches against ldap,
and does some transactions. This app has been performing fine for years,
the app has changed so it could be something there, but I am not sure
about that because of the percentage of the traffic that is successful.

The errors for the web app are "Can't contact Ldap Server" and sometimes
"Can't contact LDAP server. Start TLS request accepted.Server willing to
negotiate SSL. (0xFFFF [-1])". Out of the 128k connections below, these
errors will happen like 5 or 6 times, so its wildly inconsistent and random.

I did a logconv analysis with 6 hours of a day of testing, see below.
One thing that really stood out to me was the peak concurrent
connections = 22.. That peak is so low, I dont know how these errors are
happening.

I dont see any errors in the access log ( grepping for err=1).
I looked for cache warnings/errors in the access/errors logs, but didnt
find any. I dont see things like unavailable connections in the access logs.

Suggestions on what to change or look for in the logs ?

Thanks,
Gary

information:
Machine Size: 16G of ram, 4 core AMD (its an EC2.m5.large, gp3 disk type)

kernel:
Linux 5.14.0-427.35.1.el9_4.x86_64 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC
packages:
389-ds-base-libs-2.4.5-9.el9_4.x86_64
389-ds-base-2.4.5-9.el9_4.x86_64

single instance of dirsrv running
dirsrv modifcations from default:

nsslapd-logging-backend: dirsrv-log,syslog
nsslapd-maxdescriptors: 8192
nsslapd-listen-backlog-size: 256
nsslapd-allow-hashed-passwords: on
nsslapd-idletimeout: 30
nsslapd-ioblocktimeout: 30000
nsslapd-sizelimit: -1
nsslapd-auditlog-logging-enabled: off
nsslapd-lookthroughlimit: -1

dirsrv.systemd:
limitNOFILE=8192

>Total Log Lines Analszed: 2694287
>
>
>
> ---------- Access Log Output ------------
>
> Start of Logs:    26/Sep/2024:10:07:32.089983378
> End of Logs:      26/Sep/2024:15:54:29.895403688
>
> Processed Log Time: 5 Hours, 46 Minutes, 57.805426688 Seconds
>
> Restarts:                      0
> Secure Protocol Versions:
>   - TLS1.2 128-bit AES-GCM (123117 connections)
>
> Peak Concurrent Connections:   22
> Total Operations:              1097043
> Total Results:                 1097044
> Overall Performance:           100.0%
>
> Total Connections:             128646        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
> - LDAP Connections:           128646        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
> - LDAPI Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> - LDAPS Connections:          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> - StartTLS Extended Ops:      123116        (5.91/sec) (354.84/min)
>
> Searches:                      845279        (40.60/sec) (2436.22/min)
> Modifications:                 0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Adds:                          0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Deletes:                       0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Mod RDNs:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Compares:                      0             (0.00/sec) (0.00/min)
> Binds:                         128647        (6.18/sec) (370.78/min)
>
> Average wtime (wait time):     0.001560856
> Average optime (op time):      0.003310453
> Average etime (elapsed time): 0.004868040
>
> Multi-factor Authentications: 0
> Proxied Auth Operations:       0
> Persistent Searches:           0
> Internal Operations:           0
> Entry Operations:              0
> Extended Operations:           123116
> Abandoned Requests:            1
> Smart Referrals Received:      0
>
> VLV Operations:                0
> VLV Unindexed Searches:        0
> VLV Unindexed Components:      0
> SORT Operations:               0
>
> Entire Search Base Queries:    0
> Paged Searches:                0
> Unindexed Searches:            0
> Unindexed Components:          0
> Invalid Attribute Filters:     0
> FDs Taken:                     128646
> FDs Returned:                  129318
> Highest FD Taken:              968
>
> Broken Pipes:                  0
> Connections Reset By Peer:     0
> Resource Unavailable:          0
> Max BER Size Exceeded:         0
>
> Binds:                         128647
> Unbinds:                       119206
> -------------------------------------
> - LDAP v2 Binds:              0
> - LDAP v3 Binds:              128647
> - AUTOBINDs(LDAPI):           0
> - SSL Client Binds:           0
> - Failed SSL Client Binds:    0
> - SASL Binds:                 0
> - Dir

--
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue