Hi Ludwig, Thanks for responding on this.
After further experimentation and re-applying ACI files from earlier times, I find that the condition probably has been present the whole time and I just didn't notice because I was focusing on performance related to our Directory Manager-based scripts. We have specific ACI rules for each service account we issue. I found that by commenting out 83 of these rules, I was able to cut down the response time from ~2.5 seconds to ~0.3 seconds. Even further if I limited the returned attributes to a small set. I think a key problem with this is that our rules apply to most entries, but then it is only a very specific userdn which has the "allow" permission at the end of the rule. Is there any way to turn that around so that the userdn might be looked at first rather than processing the whole rule only to then find out that it applies to an irrelevant account? Is there any documentation on how to best optimize a complex set of ACIs? You suggested the logging would show the processing order. I tried placing the most important rule at the top of the list, but it didn't actually change the processing (and I didn't really expect that anyway). What is it that you are referring to that might help me reorder/redesign the processing of the rules? Appreciate any help you can offer. Regards, Russ. On Jul 4, 2013, at 6:11 AM, Ludwig Krispenz <lkris...@redhat.com> wrote: > Hi, > > yes, aci processing can become very expensive if you have a lot of acis are > used, the code tries to do soem optimizations to cache evaluation, but a > small change in acis could prevent the use of cached results. So if you do > not have a full set of acis from the "better" times it will be difficult to > tell what led to the changed performance. > > The aci code in RHDS and SunDS is very similar, but both have done over the > time bug fixes and attempts to optimize, so for a given set of acis > performance could be different. > > ACI logging slows down a lot, but it could help you to investigate the usage > of your acis and which acis lead to the decision and which otehr acis are > processed before, so it could help in redesigning your acis, what you > probably need to do. > > Regards, > Ludwig > > On 07/04/2013 12:06 AM, Russell Beall wrote: >> I did a lot of work experimenting with 389 for use as a replacement to Sun >> SJES. Worked really well when I focused my efforts on the backend >> processing we do with Directory Manager, except for a few performance issues >> which are being addressed in bug reports. >> >> I thought sure I had done at least some load testing with service accounts. >> The service accounts must go through ACL processing, and we have a lot of >> ACLs. I'm not sure if I changed something, or if I just didn't quite test >> this feature enough, but now that I am doing more development work with >> service accounts, I am showing a huge processing hit taken if a service >> account is used as opposed to Directory Manager. This is on the order of a >> second and a half to respond to a simple base query, versus instantaneous. >> Our old SJES servers respond very snappily in comparison for this type of >> query. >> >> CPU usage for a single thread maxes out during the time spent waiting and >> I/O wait is zero, so I know that probably the bulk of time is being spent >> processing the ACLs. This is especially true if I turn on logging for ACL >> processing, then it takes a very long time, with one example taking about 9 >> minutes. >> >> It seems to be processing and reprocessing the ACLs many many times over. >> >> I think I must have changed something or done something wrong because I'm >> pretty sure I remember much quicker response times when using a service >> account in earlier testing. >> >> This is with 389-ds-base 1.2.10.14 on RedHat 6.2. >> >> This was an experimental version downloaded to check out a memory >> fragmentation option that was coded in, so maybe I just have a version that >> was mid ACL processing changes? >> >> Thanks for any help, >> Russ. >> >> >> -- >> 389 users mailing list >> 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > > -- > 389 users mailing list > 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users > -- 389 users mailing list 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/389-users
