Hi John,
This is an excellent news that you created a CU case. We will
investigate this regression hopefully soon.
Thanks for the well described testcase, it accelerate resolution. If
you have others details regarding the testcase please update the case
with it.
Would you mind to give the case number or make sure that the support get
in touch with us.
Best regards
thierry
On 9/18/24 21:37, John Thurston wrote:
Thank you for the pointer to the defect, Thierry. I appreciate the
very quick, and informative response. It certainly smells like this is
what is affecting us.
Our case is a single connection, through which ~32,000 sequential
queries are passed. To work around this, we have re-created a DS11
replica, to which we have re-directed this job. On DS12, ~30 minutes
are required. With DS11, the job completes in ~2 minutes.
(Our DS12 instance is actually running RHDS, so we have opened a Red
Hat support case with the details.)
--
Do things because you should, not just because you can.
John Thurston 907-465-8591
john.thurs...@alaska.gov
Department of Administration
State of Alaska
On 9/12/2024 3:33 AM, Thierry Bordaz wrote:
Hi Jon,
Yes the description is "mostly" correct. We recently found a corner
case [1], where large requests (requiring several poll/read) can get
high wtime although there was no worker starvation.
Would you provide sample of access log showing this issue ?
[1] https://github.com/389ds/389-ds-base/issues/6284
regards
thierry
On 9/12/24 01:29, John Thurston wrote:
I have a new instance of 2.4.5, on which I'm seeing a very high*
'wtime' in the access log.
From
https://www.port389.org/docs/389ds/design/access-log-new-time-stats-design.html
I read
* *wtime* - This is the amount of time the operation was waiting
in the work queue before being picked up by a worker thread.
Is this still an accurate description of 'wtime' ?
If true, I suspect the high values I'm seeing have nothing to do
with the version of the software I'm running, and everything to do
with the system on which the software is running. Work has arrived,
and been queued, but there aren't enough worker-threads to keep the
queue serviced in a timely manner.
* 'high' as in 3,000% longer than what I see on a totally different
system running 1.4.4
--
--
Do things because you should, not just because you can.
John Thurston 907-465-8591
john.thurs...@alaska.gov
Department of Administration
State of Alaska
--
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@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
