On (21/06/16 22:08), Jakub Hrozek wrote: >On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 11:46:51AM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 06:57:55PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:33:49PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:43:41PM +0200, Jakub Hrozek wrote: >> > > > Hi, >> > > > >> > > > the attached patchset improves SSSD by performance by adding a second >> > > > ldb cache file that is opened with LDB_FLG_NOSYNC and contains >> > > > empeheral >> > > > data like timestamps. The reason is to avoid updating the sync-cache in >> > > > case nothing in fact changed and SSSD is only refreshing the cache to >> > > > add new timestamps. Especially for group lookups, this can improve >> > > > performance a bit. The first lookup, or any where the actual data >> > > > changes is still slow, though. >> > > > >> > > > I don't have a CI link yet, because I'm having issues installing pyldb >> > > > on >> > > > our test machines. >> > > > >> > > > The last patch doesn't touch sysdb, but the LDAP provider. I hope it's >> > > > fine to include it in the same set, though. >> > > > >> > > > The full design document is at: >> > > > >> > > > https://fedorahosted.org/sssd/wiki/DesignDocs/OneFourteenPerformanceImprovements >> > > >> > > the attached patches fix one bug in the NSS responder related to MPG >> > > domains and one issue with adding incomplete groups. >> > >> > I found another bug: >> > if you upgrade to this version from one that didn't have the >> > timestamp cache, sss_cache doesn't work until the cache is >> > invalidated. >> > >> > I'm not sure how to fix this yet, whether to create the timestamp >> > entries on upgrade to be safe or maybe invalidate all entries during >> > upgrade..but I would like to wait if there are any review comments from >> > anybody before proceeding. >> >> Attached are patches rebased on today's origin/master. > >btw the integration test I wrote seems a bit flaky in CI: > http://sssd-ci.duckdns.org/logs/job/45/68/rhel6/ci.html >although it just works for me locally. I wonder if it would be >acceptable to use the test only during patch review and fix it up later.
You needn't remove test from patch. Just remove file with test. It should not start with "test_" or finish with "_test.py" LS _______________________________________________ sssd-devel mailing list sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://lists.fedorahosted.org/admin/lists/sssd-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
