[Samba] samba4 binddlz performance
Thomas Manninger
DBGTMaster at gmx.at
Thu Dec 13 02:24:20 MST 2012
-------- Original-Nachricht --------
> Datum: Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:37:29 +0100
> Von: "Thomas Manninger" <DBGTMaster at gmx.at>
> An: mat at samba.org, samba-technical at lists.samba.org, DBGTMaster at gmx.at
> Betreff: Re: [Samba] samba4 binddlz performance
> H
>
> -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > Datum: Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:13:00 -0800
> > Von: Matthieu Patou <mat at samba.org>
> > An: Thomas Manninger <DBGTMaster at gmx.at>, samba-technical
> <samba-technical at lists.samba.org>
> > Betreff: Re: [Samba] samba4 binddlz performance
>
> > On 12/03/2012 06:40 AM, Thomas Manninger wrote:
> > > -------- Original-Nachricht --------
> > >> Datum: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:32:31 -0800
> > >> Von: Matthieu Patou <mat at samba.org>
> > >> An: samba at lists.samba.org
> > >> Betreff: Re: [Samba] samba4 binddlz performance
> > >> On 11/19/2012 07:11 AM, Thomas Manninger wrote:
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>> i am using samba4rc2.
> > >>>
> > >>> I have problems with the bind9 dlz module, i get very long response
> > >> times from interal queries.
> > >>> root at s-srv01:~# dig s-srv04.test.local @192.168.0.4
> > >>>
> > >>> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.0-P4 <<>> s-srv04.test.local @192.168.0.4
> > >>> ;; global options: +cmd
> > >>> ;; Got answer:
> > >>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 64478
> > >>> ;; flags: qr aa rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 2,
> ADDITIONAL:
> > 1
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > >>> ;s-srv04.test.local. IN A
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > >>> s-srv04.test.local. 900 IN A 192.168.0.4
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > >>> test.local. 900 IN NS s-srv01.test.local.
> > >>> test.local. 900 IN NS s-srv04.test.local.
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> > >>> s-srv01.test.local. 900 IN A 192.168.0.1
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; Query time: 1239 msec
> > >>> ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.4#53(192.168.0.4)
> > >>> ;; WHEN: Mon Nov 19 16:07:59 2012
> > >>> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 108
> > >> .local is normally used for mdns (see.
> > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDNS#Host_Discovery), can you try with
> > >> another kind of tld (ie. use domain test.corp).
> > >>> external queries are a little bit faster:
> > >>>
> > >>> root at s-srv01:~# dig google.com @192.168.0.4
> > >>>
> > >>> ; <<>> DiG 9.8.0-P4 <<>> google.com @192.168.0.4
> > >>> ;; global options: +cmd
> > >>> ;; Got answer:
> > >>> ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 56403
> > >>> ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 11, AUTHORITY: 13, ADDITIONAL:
> 6
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; QUESTION SECTION:
> > >>> ;google.com. IN A
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; ANSWER SECTION:
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.135
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.136
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.137
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.142
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.128
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.129
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.130
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.131
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.132
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.133
> > >>> google.com. 300 IN A 173.194.35.134
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS a.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS c.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS b.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS g.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS f.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS j.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS e.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS i.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS l.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS k.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS h.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS d.root-servers.net.
> > >>> . 45846 IN NS m.root-servers.net.
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
> > >>> a.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 198.41.0.4
> > >>> b.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 192.228.79.201
> > >>> c.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 192.33.4.12
> > >>> d.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 128.8.10.90
> > >>> e.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 192.203.230.10
> > >>> f.root-servers.net. 45846 IN A 192.5.5.241
> > >>>
> > >>> ;; Query time: 281 msec
> > >>> ;; SERVER: 192.168.0.4#53(192.168.0.4)
> > >>> ;; WHEN: Mon Nov 19 16:09:06 2012
> > >>> ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 511
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> When i change to the samba4 internal dns server, i get response time
> > >> about ~1-2ms.
> > >>> But why is the bind dlz modul so slooow..?
> > >> you can use kcachegrind to trace bind in foreground mode in order to
> > see
> > >> where the time is spent.
> > >>
> > >> Matthieu.
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Matthieu Patou
> > >> Samba Team
> > >> http://samba.org
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> > >> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
> > > I started bind with:
> > >
> > > valgrind --tool=callgring /usr/sbin/named -c /etc/bind/named.conf -f
> > >
> > > So i get any answers, bind is very slow.
> > Yeah callgrind tends to slow down a lot but it's super useful.
> > >
> > > Now, i have a callgrind file, but i dont can read this file... I only
> > see, that ltdb_search_indexed needs incl. 96%..
> > >
> > > can somebody helps me??
> > >
> > > file is included as attachment.
> > >
> > > thanks!
> >
> > Sorry I'm just able to have a look at it now, so yes most of the time is
> > spent in the ltdb_search_indexed.
> >
> > Looking at the code and the capture in the dlz_bind9.c it seems that the
> > function dlz_lookup_types is call 44 times and is doing 44 ldb_search
> > with a base scope on a given DN.
> > Those 44 search yield 144 calls to the ltdb_search and given the fact
> > that we ends up with 147862 calls to ltdb_search_dn1 I'm highly sure
> > that not all the internal searches where done with a base scope
> > (otherwise we would have 144 calls to ltdb_search_dn1).
> >
> > The initial search for me looks perfect and there is no real possibility
> > to make it any better scope=base + specified dn is the ideal case imho.
> >
> > I'm looking at a small optimization in the LDB indexing to save DNs in
> > the index already case_folded which should help quite a lot as you spent
> > half of the time doing this kind of operation.
> > Another way to improve this is to understand why we have a spread of
> > ltdb_search calls and why some of those calls seems to be with a subtree
> > scope.
> >
> > Could you rebuild the library with make clean; ./configure.developper;
> > make -j and is it possible to share your database ?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Matthieu
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Matthieu Patou
> > Samba Team
> > http://samba.org
> >
>
> When i delete all user and groups, i can share my database. its ok?
And how can i delete all users and groups completely??
More information about the samba-technical
mailing list