Hi John, I tried with 10000 users and there was no problem. But maybe it is related to auto-completion. Please give me some more days to test this.
Best regards Roland On 15.09.2014 15:23, John Maher wrote: > Hi Roland, > > I already have a high level of logging (stats) enabled, so, I looked > at the ldap searches again. The search that takes the longest (the > last search) is essentially this: > > ldapsearch -x -LLL -H ldapi:/// -b ou=people,dc=cns > 'objectClass=inetOrgPerson' departmentNumber title employeeType > > This command takes 0.54 seconds, so I'm pretty confident at this point > that ldap itself is not presenting a performance problem. > > During the search (after I have clicked the edit icon for a user), > apache is essentially the only process using the cpu. It's taking 100 > percent of the cpu for the entire 30 seconds before there is an unbind > and close result for slapd. > > I have a vanilla install of apache. If any of this information can > help you direct me what to do I would be delighted. > > Thanks for you help. > > John > > On 09/14/2014 03:08 PM, Roland Gruber wrote: >> Hi John, > >> On 12.09.2014 20:08, John Maher wrote: >>> It's possible that the LDAP server is the bottleneck, but I >>> don't understand why editing a single user would need to start >>> with a search of all users. (Although the check for duplicates >>> would explain that I guess.) Can you direct me to the code that >>> constructs the LDAP searches, or tell me what searches LAM is >>> performing. I have yet to create a search using the ldapsearch >>> utility that lasted more than a few seconds. > >> I think the best approach is to turn on LDAP logging like described >> at the end of this page. This is much easier than trying to get the >> various queries out of the code. > > >> https://www.ldap-account-manager.org/static/doc/manual/api.html > > > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > Want excitement? >> Manually upgrade your production database. When you want >> reliability, choose Perforce Perforce version control. Predictably >> reliable. >> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > > > > >> _______________________________________________ Lam-public mailing >> list [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lam-public > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Want excitement? > Manually upgrade your production database. > When you want reliability, choose Perforce > Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk > _______________________________________________ > Lam-public mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lam-public >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Want excitement? Manually upgrade your production database. When you want reliability, choose Perforce. Perforce version control. Predictably reliable. http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=157508191&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________ Lam-public mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/lam-public
