• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
What's New in OpenLDAP
 

What's New in OpenLDAP

on

  • 966 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
966
Views on SlideShare
828
Embed Views
138

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
10
Comments
0

2 Embeds 138

http://lanyrd.com 126
https://twitter.com 12

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    What's New in OpenLDAP What's New in OpenLDAP Presentation Transcript

    • What's New in OpenLDAP Howard Chu
    • OpenLDAP Project ● Open source code project ● Founded 1998 ● Three core team members ● A dozen or so contributors ● Feature releases every 12-18 months ● Maintenance releases roughly monthly
    • A Word About Symas ● Founded 1999 ● Founders from Enterprise Software world – platinum Technology (Locus Computing) – IBM ● Howard joined OpenLDAP in 1999 – One of the Core Team members – Appointed Chief Architect January 2007 ● No debt, no VC investments
    • Intro Howard Chu ● ● Founder and CTO Symas Corp. Developing Free/Open Source software since 1980s – GNU compiler toolchain, e.g. "gmake -j", etc. – Many other projects, check ohloh.net... ● Worked for NASA/JPL, wrote software for Space Shuttle, etc. 4
    • What's New ● Lightning Memory-Mapped Database (LMDB) and its knock-on effects ● Within OpenLDAP code ● Other projects ● New HyperDex clustered backend ● New Samba4/AD integration work ● Other features ● What's missing
    • LMDB ● Introduced at LDAPCon 2011 ● ● Full ACID transactions MVCC, readers and writers don't block each other ● Ultra-compact, compiles to under 32KB ● Memory-mapped, lightning fast zero-copy reads ● Much greater CPU and memory efficiency ● Much simpler configuration
    • LMDB Impact ● Within OpenLDAP ● ● Revealed other frontend bottlenecks that were hidden by BerkeleyDB-based backends Addressed in OpenLDAP 2.5 ● ● Thread pool enhanced, support multiple work queues to reduce mutex contention Connection manager enhanced, simplify write synchronization
    • OpenLDAP Frontend ● Testing in 2011 (16 core server): ● back-hdb, 62000 searches/sec, 1485 % CPU ● back-mdb, 75000 searches/sec, 1000 % CPU ● ● back-mdb, 2 slapds, 127000 searches/sec, 1250 % CPU - network limited We should not have needed two processes to hit this rate
    • Efficiency Note ● back-hdb 62000 searches/sec @ 1485 % ● ● back-mdb 127000 searches/sec @1250 % ● ● ● 41.75 searches per CPU % 101.60 searches per CPU % 2.433x as many searches per unit of CPU "Performance" isn't the point, *Efficiency* is what matters
    • OpenLDAP Frontend ● Threadpool contention ● Analyzed using mutrace ● Found #1 bottleneck in threadpool mutex ● Modified threadpool to support multiple queues ● ● ● On quad-core laptop, using 4 queues reduced mutex contended time by factor of 6. Reduced condition variable contention by factor of 3. Overall 20 % improvement in throughput on quadcore VM
    • OpenLDAP Frontend ● Connection Manager ● ● Also a single thread, accepting new connections and polling for read/write ready on existing Now can be split to multiple threads ● ● Impact depends on number of connections Polling for write is no longer handled by the listener thread ● ● ● Removes one level of locks and indirection Simplifies WriteTimeout implementation Typically no benchmark impact, only significant when blocking on writes due to slow clients
    • OpenLDAP Frontend Frontend Improvements, Quadcore VM 40000 35000 30000 Ops/Second 25000 SearchRate AuthRate ModRate 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 OL 2.4 OL 2.5
    • LMDB Impact ● Adoption by many other projects ● Outperforms all other embedded databases in common applications ● ● CFengine, Postfix, PowerDNS, etc. Has none of the reliability/integrity weaknesses of other databases ● Has none of the licensing issues... ● Integrated into multiple NoSQL projects ● Redis, SkyDB, Memcached, HyperDex, etc.
    • LMDB Microbenchmark ● ● ● Comparisons based on Google's LevelDB Also tested against Kyoto Cabinet's TreeDB, SQLite3, and BerkeleyDB Tested using RAM filesystem (tmpfs), reiserfs on SSD, and multiple filesystems on HDD – btrfs, ext2, ext3, ext4, jfs, ntfs, reiserfs, xfs, zfs – ext3, ext4, jfs, reiserfs, xfs also tested with external journals
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Relative Footprint text data bss dec hex filename 272247 1456 328 274031 42e6f db_bench 1675911 2288 304 1678503 199ca7 db_bench_bdb 90423 1508 304 92235 1684b db_bench_mdb 653480 7768 1688 662936 a2764 db_bench_sqlite3 296572 4808 1096 302476 49d8c db_bench_tree_db Clearly LMDB has the smallest footprint – Carefully written C code beats C++ every time
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Read Performance Read Performance Small Records Small Records 16000000 800000 14000000 700000 12000000 600000 10000000 500000 8000000 400000 6000000 300000 4000000 200000 2000000 100000 0 0 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB Random BDB MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Read Performance Read Performance Large Records Large Records 35000000 2000000 30303030 30000000 1718213 1800000 1600000 25000000 1400000 1200000 20000000 1000000 15000000 800000 600000 10000000 400000 5000000 0 7402 16514 299133 200000 9133 0 7047 14518 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB 15183 8646 Random BDB MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Read Performance Read Performance Large Records Large Records 100000000 30303030 10000000 1718213 1000000 1000000 299133 100000 100000 10000 10000000 7402 16514 10000 9133 7047 14518 15183 8646 1000 1000 100 100 10 10 1 1 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB Random MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Asynchronous Write Performance Asynchronous Write Performance Large Records, tmpfs Large Records, tmpfs 14000 12905 14000 12000 12000 10000 10000 8000 12735 8000 5860 6000 4000 2000 5709 6000 4000 3366 2029 1920 2000 0 2004 1902 742 0 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB Random BDB MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Batched Write Performance Batched Write Performance Large Records, tmpfs Large Records, tmpfs 14000 13215 14000 12000 12000 10000 10000 8000 13099 8000 5860 6000 4000 2000 5709 6000 4000 3138 2068 1952 2000 0 3079 2041 1939 0 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB Random BDB MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • LMDB Microbenchmark Synchronous Write Performance Synchronous Write Performance Large Records, tmpfs Large Records, tmpfs 14000 12916 14000 12000 12000 10000 10000 8000 8000 6000 12665 6000 4000 2000 3121 4000 3368 2026 1913 2000 0 1996 2162 1893 745 0 Sequential SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB Random BDB MDB SQLite3 TreeDB LevelDB BDB MDB
    • MemcacheDB Read Performance Write Performance Single Thread, Log Scale Single Thread, Log Scale 1000 100 msec 1 0.1 100 min avg max90th max95th max99th max 10 msec min avg max90th max95th max99th max 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.01 BDB 4.7 MDB Memcached BDB 4.7 MDB Memcached
    • MemcacheDB Read Performance Write Performance 4 Threads, Log Scale 4 Threads, Log Scale 10 1000 msec 1 100 min avg max90th max95th max99th max 10 msec min avg max90th max95th max99th max 1 0.1 0.1 0.01 0.01 BDB 4.7 MDB Memcached BDB 4.7 MDB Memcached
    • HyperDex ● New generation NoSQL database server ● http://hyperdex.org ● Simple configuration/deployment ● Multidimensional indexing/sharding ● Efficient distributed search engine ● ● Built on Google LevelDB, evolved to their fixed version HyperLevelDB Ported to LMDB
    • LMDB, HyperDex
    • LMDB, HyperDex ● CPU time used for inserts : ● ● ● ● LMDB 19:44.52 HyperLevelDB 96:46.96 HyperLevelDB used 4.9x more CPU for same number of operations Again, performance isn't the point. Throwing extra CPU at a job to "make it go faster" is stupid.
    • LMDB, HyperDex
    • LMDB, HyperDex ● CPU time used for read/update : – LMDB 1:33.17 – HyperLevelDB 3:37.67 ● HyperLevelDB used 2.3x more CPU for same number of operations
    • LMDB, HyperDex
    • LMDB, HyperDex ● CPU time used for inserts : ● ● ● LMDB 227:26 HyperLevelDB 3373:13 HyperLevelDB used 14.8x more CPU for same number of operations
    • LMDB, HyperDex
    • LMDB, HyperDex ● CPU time used for read/update : – LMDB 4:21.41 – HyperLevelDB 17:27 ● HyperLevelDB used 4.0x more CPU for same number of operations
    • back-hyperdex ● New clustered backend built on HyperDex ● ● Existing back-ndb clustered backend is deprecated, Oracle has refused to cooperate on support Nearly complete LDAP support ● ● ● Currently has limited search filter support Uses flat (back-bdb style) namespace, not hierarchical Still in prototype stage as HyperDex API is still in flux
    • Samba4/AD ● Samba4 provides its own ActiveDirectorycompatible LDAP service ● ● ● built on Samba ldb/tdb libraries supports AD replication Has some problems ● ● ● Incompatible with Samba3+OpenLDAP deployments Originally attempted to interoperate with OpenLDAP, but that work was abandoned Poor performance
    • Samba4/AD ● OpenLDAP interop work revived ● two opposite approaches being pursued in parallel ● ● resurrect original interop code port functionality into slapd overlays ● currently about 75 % of the test suite passes ● keep an eye on contrib/slapd-modules/samba4
    • Other Features ● cn=config enhancements ● ● ● Support LDAPDelete op Support slapmodify/slapdelete offline tools LDAP transactions ● ● Needed for Samba4 support Frontend/overlay restructuring ● Rationalize Bind and ExtendedOp result handling ● Other internal API cleanup
    • What's Missing ● Deprecated BerkeleyDB-based backends ● back-bdb was deprecated in 2.4 ● back-hdb deprecated in 2.5 ● both scheduled for deletion in 2.6 ● configure switches renamed, so existing packager scripts can no longer enable them without explicit action
    • Questions? 38
    • Thanks!