This is a discussion on Re: [Samba] Overloaded samba server. Is it a bug? within the Samba forums, part of the Networking and Network Related category; On Wednesday 02 November 2005 19:34, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:53 -0300, ...
|
|||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|||
|
On Wednesday 02 November 2005 19:34, Andrew Bartlett wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-02 at 18:53 -0300, Martin wrote: > > On Monday 31 October 2005 18:27, Andrew Bartlett wrote: > > > > >Now we are testing this configuration and waiting for the results. > > > > > > > > Bad luck... the load exploited again :( > > > > > > My gut feeling is that this is an e-Directory bug, but have you posted > > > logfiles and traffic somewhere? (Warning: unencrypted LDAP traffic > > > will include passwords). > > > > Dear Andrew: > > > > We've been trying to test our environment as recommended in the last > > posts. We switched the backend to openLDAP trying to discard the idea of > > a bug in eDirectory. And here... the conclusion: > > > > > > Backend switch: > > > > > > 1) Sadly, Samba server still getting overloaded. The server doesn't > > hang as in the previous scenario, but it gets extremely slow and there's > > no way to provide service with it (load grows up to 60 or 70). It stops > > responding a couple of minutes after the load gets to the limit. > > > > 2) There's an incredible amount of smbd childs in "D" state > > (uninterruptable sleep), when the load starts to raise. It happens with > > both backends (it's softer with openLDAP, but still unusable). > > This is a *very* important clue. If this were an LDAP issue, then Samba > should be in S state, and the ldap processes should be going nuts. > > > 3) The number of sleeping processes is considerably lower with > > openLDAP. > > > > It seems that, something is beating the samba server because of a > > bug perhaps, or a misconfiguration. The system is a little (but not > > much) tolerant when openLDAP is used as backend (instead of eDir), but > > the problems still no matter the directory service being used. > > What do you think about a client triggering this behaviour some way? > > I now suspect the LDAP angle is a red herring, and I'm instead thinking > 'kernel issue'. > > > Weird things found: > > > > I'll comment some lines about a couple of strange things i saw. They > > may be completely unrelated to the main problem, but here they go just > > in case. > > > > 1) Some times (according to what an strace attached to the parent > > smbd process shows us), a user working on an XLS file starts a curious > > behaviour in which the server tries to find a file that no longer exist > > in a periodically basis (i.e: loop). We think the user deleted the file, > > still an smbd process kept trying to access it. (it was complaining with > > "file does not exist" messages permanently) (A few minutes later when the > > loop was happening we went to the user desktop and found out he has > > already turned off his machine!) > > > > We've captured service logs, straces, ps aux snapshots during the > > load issue and a couple of lsofs. (The whole samba's logs are more than > > 1G and is impossible to determinate a fail, because the server still > > responding until the load is too high to continue serving files) > > > > Is there any way to get some more verbosity? any different way of > > debugging (gdb maybe?)? > > What would be interesting is to find out where each of those smbd > processes is waiting. Ie, what call is causing the kernel to put the > process in D state. Is it the same call, or a lot of different calls? How could we find it out? How could we get enough debugging level to reach this information? When the smbd proccess stopped in D state the strace does not show any line... -- Mrtn -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/samba |