Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 61858 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2010 08:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 19 Mar 2010 08:34:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 58861 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2010 08:34:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-httpd-users-archive@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 58661 invoked by uid 500); 19 Mar 2010 08:34:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk Reply-To: users@httpd.apache.org list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@httpd.apache.org Received: (qmail 58652 invoked by uid 99); 19 Mar 2010 08:34:34 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:34:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of manuel.vacelet@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.215 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.218.215] (HELO mail-bw0-f215.google.com) (209.85.218.215) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 08:34:26 +0000 Received: by bwz7 with SMTP id 7so2185250bwz.24 for ; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:34:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=8XVJ4bPoacUrGDoxzEqXXHv/qHHRsXDXmMn902d9+TA=; b=j9J6I9hZ/QBtoJTeHHq2uU7waNt9ot74OvmkGUxLO9nReZ4W97EKOsP7tmjnhiHP9S kuh/jRr/yhMyDLRMELwCu1gzzzKiBVl8vP0qYp7PglHmAumYgMnEfq5skXjdGI6N7iBj 15u+PQuH1rH4uBPegBAY/A5pUMffsCyA80f/0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=JFTYBGtN9EmDTVW2qICWU5bznesvErPwi0dEsNCYF5L0zhxbFBuKPbTyhL9qT9Ax/b XymOmd/DPnE5pPliQ4I9AB5eXz/jNCoxAQeIqMQIUtW/XMO9CVaa1f6ags5iThrSArxg wRILeHP7GYdHxvLSGlRCv4Mz9pZ6yDwtbmQ7c= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.3.207 with SMTP id 15mr2770224bko.91.1268987645157; Fri, 19 Mar 2010 01:34:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:34:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: Manuel Vacelet To: users@httpd.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: [users@httpd] Re: mod_ldap cache and strace doesn't tell the same story I continue my investigations... The mod_ldap cache failure seems related to regular graceful restart (~30mn) the application send to apache to take into account conf update. Does it make sense ? How graceful restart could impact caching of mod_ldap? Manuel On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Manuel Vacelet wrote: > On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 2:18 PM, Manuel Vacelet > wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Manuel Vacelet >> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm facing a strange issue. >>> I have a major performance penalty on some apache related operations >>> (svn checkout that used to take 5mn but that suddenly takes more than >>> 7 hours). >>> >>> I'm running a standard RHEL5.3 with apache 2.2.3 (fyi the server runs >>> mod_php, mod_auth_mysql and some other modules too). >>> >>> Thanks to strace, I identified that the httpd process that is "very >>> long" (the httpd process that discuss with svn client that takes hour >>> to complete). >>> The process makes a lot of operation on a file descriptor attached to >>> my ldap server and is regulary blocking with following syscall: >>> poll([{fd=3, events=POLLIN|POLLPRI|POLLERR|POLLHUP}], 1, -1 >>> >>> fd3 is a socket (/proc//fd/3) and the inode of this socket is >>> used to communicate with the ldap server (shown by netstat) >>> >>> This is where I no longer understand what happens: >>> - I'm using mod_ldap so there should be a cache of all ldap info. >>> - ldap-status confirm that the credentials used for the svn operation >>> are in cache. >>> - The cache is far from full (2%) >>> - The hit ratio is close to 100% >>> >>> => Why there is an activity between my httpd process and the ldap server ? >> >> I think I have an answer to this question: >> In some cases, the apache process (I'm running prefork) doesn't use >> mod_ldap cache. >> >> I made a test: >> In parallel of a very slow checkout, I ran another one. The second >> checkout was running as normal rate. >> A couple of strace on the server later, it appears that, the apache >> process that server the second checkout never talk to the ldap server >> >> So the new question is: >> Why 2 apache processes forked from the same root could behave so differently ? > > Does anybody have an explanation to this whole thing ? > > Why "sometimes" mod_ldap never cache my credentials ? > Or in other words: "what would make mod_ldap not to cache users credentials" ? > > Manuel > --------------------------------------------------------------------- The official User-To-User support forum of the Apache HTTP Server Project. See for more info. To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org " from the digest: users-digest-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@httpd.apache.org