Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

For bugs related to Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 product line. The current stable release is 5.10. For Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 and above, please visit Red Hat JIRA https://issues.redhat.com/secure/CreateIssue!default.jspa?pid=12332745 to report new issues.

Bug 234801

Summary:	openldap got poor performance with RHEL5 on HP DL380 G4 and G5
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5	Reporter:	Ching-Che Yen <ccyen>
Component:	openldap	Assignee:	Jan Zeleny <jzeleny>
Status:	CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA	QA Contact:
Severity:	high	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	5.0	CC:	jplans, k.georgiou, timm2k
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	i686
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-10-19 14:24:05 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Ching-Che Yen 2007-04-02 07:09:03 UTC

Description of problem:

I created a ldap server(openldap-2.3.27-5) with RHEL5,I found the performance is
very bad on a very powerful machine(HP DL380 G5,2 way 3.2GHZ cpu,4GB Memory,SAS
disks),even I had tuned the slapd.conf and DB_CONFIG.I test it with my own
script , I found the ldap server could just handle 4 authentication queries per
second !!!

Then I tried to create ldap server  with RHEL5 on my Desktop computer(AMD
1.7Gz,2GB Memory,IDE disk),and I get greater ldap query performance on it (about
160 authentication queries per second !!!)

In order to test it further,I install RHEL4(openldap-2.2.13-6.4) and
RHEL3(openldap-2.0.27-22) on the HP DL380.All performance is very bad (about 4
to 12 authenticaion queries per second).

Then I guess that maybe it's the SMP or Hyper-threading to influence the
performance.
So I tried to unplug one cpu to reduce the number of cpu from 2 ways to 1
way,and disable Hyper-threading in the BIOS.
The result is.....still very bad.....

btw,I install the RHEL5 on another pc(p4 2.8Ghz 1GB ram),It works
smoothly.(about 140 authentication queries per second).

No I really don't know how to test it further....@_@
  
Could any one give me a suggesstion?

Thank you very much,and sorry for my poor english.

Comment 1 Jan Zeleny 2009-09-01 13:30:47 UTC

It has been over two years since this bugzilla was created. Is this issue still present or was there any progress?

Comment 2 Timm Stamer 2009-09-01 13:33:31 UTC

I've got a similar problem on a brand-new FSC RX200 S5 (Intel Nehalem, 12G RAM) running RHEL 5.3 x86_64.

In the first minute after enabling this host on the upstream loadbalancer (Foundry ServerIron GT E2) everything working fine. LDAP answers takes ~0.1 seconds. After some time connections get stucked and answers take up to 5 seconds or got timed out.

Other servers in the cluster are much older xeon processors w 2gb of RAM running RHEL AS4 (i386). One of these is ldap master, the new one is a replica.


regards,
timm

Comment 3 Timm Stamer 2009-09-01 13:35:14 UTC

sorry jan, several "human interrupts" delayed my post ;)

Comment 4 Jan Zeleny 2009-09-01 15:23:45 UTC

Thank you for the info. I suggest consulting these issues with customer support, those guys might have some tips about it and there might even be no need for any patch.

Comment 5 Ching-Che Yen 2009-09-03 06:35:54 UTC

This problem was solved after about 2 months.

I think that the yum update some rpm packages to fix it.

Then I checked the yum.log file,but there are no openldap or some similar updates.

I had tried to update the rpm packages in the yum.log one bye one manually to try to repeat the problem,but I just can't repeat it anymore.(to many packages and dependence problems)

Now I just know that if I install the newest RHEL,the openldap server is ok now.

Comment 6 Jan Zeleny 2009-10-19 14:24:05 UTC

Original reporter of this bug solved the issue and I have no information to consider this to be a bug, so I'm closing it. If anyone else has similar troubles, please contact our customer support, they might help you with debugging before it gets to me as a new bug.