about entry cache use and configuration: the auto tuning is expected to provide with the most optimized configuration. but in this case, it may be interesting to try different manual configuration to change the dynamics in order to eother workaround an eventual memory leak, or minimize memory fragmentation. for example: dsconf SOME-INSTANCE-NAME backend config get | grep cache dsconf SOME-INSTANCE-NAME backend config set --cache-autosize=0 dsconf SOME-INSTANCE-NAME backend suffix set --cache-memsize=5000000000 userRoot # example 5 GB for userRoot dsconf SOME-INSTANCE-NAME backend config get | grep cache or with the Cockpit web UI: https://localhost/389-console root password Database tab "Global Database Configuration" about THP, it should be disabled for the ns-slapd process, to verify, try: grep THP /proc/$(pidof ns-slapd)/status about 389-ds versions: per the page at https://www.port389.org/ , the last release is: 2026-04-29: Released 389-ds-base 3.2.1 as well as per https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/2026/4/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-announce@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/ADCDPLPTVSXYSF57UEL7QICWU3UB6MRL/ Announcing 389 Directory Server 3.2.1 (F45/Rawhide) and https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/ ( note there are 3.3 and 3.2.2 for devel ) I can only speak for Fedora, CentOS, and RHEL. I will let others on this list to comment about Alma, I would expect no issues, but I do not know the available versions on Alma. Cordially, Marc S. On Fri, Jul 3, 2026 at 1:41 PM Morgan Jones <mjones6@morganjones.org> wrote: > > Hello Marc, > > Thanks for the quick reply. My responses are inline. > > > On Jul 3, 2026, at 05:51, Marc Sauton <msauton@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > The memory increase could be fragmentation. > > It looks like the entry cache may be too small at around 600MB, you > > could try tune it up to 1GB or 2GB, up to 5GB, the DB size may be > > around 5GB. > > Well, I had to set auto sizing to 5% to get it to run without crashing so, yeah, the cache is tiny > > Do you mean turn off auto sizing and set the entry cache manually? > > If I understand you correctly it's a good guess, we're 6gb. Is 16gb of ram not sufficient for a 6gb database? > > [root@cb5c999df0ed db]# ls > DBVERSION __db.001 __db.002 __db.003 log.0000000119 userRoot > [root@cb5c999df0ed db]# du -sh > 6.0G . > [root@cb5c999df0ed db]# du -sh userRoot > 5.7G userRoot > [root@cb5c999df0ed db]# > > > > You could also verify if THP is disabled for the LDAP process, > > I just read about this last night and it's set to madvise--is that sufficient? I can set to never and test if you're not sure. > > [root@cb5c999df0ed /]# cat /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled > always [madvise] never > [root@cb5c999df0ed /]# > > > Note the version 2.7 is from 2025 and there has been a number of > > serious fixes since then, I would consider to upgrade, add some more > > recent replicas. > > We're still testing so i can switch to any version, I'm trying to stick with whatever is the most current/stable version, is 2.7.0 not the newest 2.x version? Should we be considering 3.x? > > And either way is Alma 9 the right base? > > thank you! > > -morgan > > > Thanks, > > Marc S. > > > > On Thu, Jul 2, 2026 at 9:35 PM Morgan Jones via 389-users > > <389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org> wrote: > >> > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am struggling to determine why 389-Directory/2.7.0 B2026.064.0000 is using a crippling amount of memory. > >> > >> I'm not married to 2.7.0, just looking for something stable and actively supported but not too new. > >> > >> We're running it in Docker on almalinux:9. > >> > >> If I set nsslapd-cache-autosize to much over 5 ns-slapd consumes memory and is killed by the OOM. I have increased docker's memory limit to that of the host but if it's smaller the same happens, sometimes just sooner as the OOM sees the process exceed Docker's limits. > >> > >> The server has 16gb of ram, I have turned off the NDN cache. > >> > >> ns-slapd is using 14gb of ram not leaving much for the OS. nsslapd-cache-autosize is set to 5, where is all of the memory going?? > >> > >> Here's the current state of the cache: > >> > >> # docker exec -it sdp389ds dsconf localhost monitor dbmon > >> DB Monitor Report: 2026-07-02 17:24:32 > >> -------------------------------------------------------- > >> Database Cache: > >> - Cache Hit Ratio: 89% > >> - Free Space: 101.89 MB > >> - Free Percentage: 51.3% > >> - RO Page Drops: 14972351 > >> - Pages In: 15086991 > >> - Pages Out: 405261 > >> > >> Backends: > >> - dc=philasd,dc=org (userRoot): > >> - Entry Cache Hit Ratio: 13% > >> - Entry Cache Count: 38259 > >> - Entry Cache Free Space: 6.8 KB > >> - Entry Cache Free Percentage: 0.0% > >> - Entry Cache Average Size: 15.42 KB > >> - DN Cache Hit Ratio: 97% > >> - DN Cache Count: 336275 > >> - DN Cache Free Space: 37.42 MB > >> - DN Cache Free Percentage: 58.5% > >> - DN Cache Average Size: 82.0 B > >> > >> # > >> > >> > >> Any advice would be appreciated, I have to be missing something simple here! > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> -morgan > >> -- > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new > > > -- _______________________________________________ 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://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
No comments:
Post a Comment