TF-LSD TIO performanse test setup

LDAP TIO INDEX server performance test

General setup for the LDAP TIO Index-server

performance test

Henny Bekker @ SURFnet

TF-LSD TIO-server performance test setup 3

The LDAP-Index performance test..

• The setup of the test lab• What software is used in the test• The general setup for the performance test

–The benchmark setup–The dataset, objectClasses and attributes–What tokenization

• What is tested and measured–The filter setting–Latency and number of requests per second


The setup of the test lab

• The TIO index client and server systems– One dedicated server running out of the box RedHat v7.1

• 400-MHz Intel Pentium II• 512 Mbyte RAM• 100 Mbps/Full-Duplex Ethernet interface• Maxtor 10-Gbyte IDE disk

– 4 dedicated client systems running RedHat v7.1• 266-MHz Intel Pentium II (or better)• 256 Mbyte RAM• 100 Mbps/Full-Duplex Ethernet interface• Maxtor 4-Gbyte IDE disk

– Consoles connected using a ‘starview’ console switch

• The network setup– A dedicated VLAN on a Cisco Catalyst 5000 switch– 100-Mbps Fast Ethernet Full-Duplex


What software is used in the test

• LDAP/TIO index servers– LIMS V 1.01 (Catalogix)– Desire/LDAP-TIO index v1.0 (Desire/DAASI)

• MySQL v3.23.36

• OpenLDAP v1.2.10

• Apache v1.3.2

– IDDS v4.5• TIO converter software

– Tags v1.0– Ldif2tio & tiocollapse

• LDAP test software– Ldapgun v0.25– Ldapsearch v2.0.7-14


The general setup for the test

• The benchmark setup– Plan the test (estimate load requirements)

• The index(es) must fit in main memory– Designate PC’s for server and clients– Verify network performance

• tcpblast and iperf– Execute verification test

• Using IDDS v4.5• Ldapgun and ldapsearch• Use designated dataset

– Loading TIOs into index servers– Run ldap clients for 10 minutes to ‘warm up’ the

index and system disk cache


The general setup for the test (cont.)

• The dataset to be used– A test-set of approximately 450-K entries

• SURFnet ±170-K entries• DFN ±120-K entries• Needs ±150-K entries (NO, SE)

– Used tokenization • DNS: cn, o, ou, l, c, gn• RFC822: mail• Full: sn, objectclass

– Only objectClass=person entries• Using anonymous bind• LDAPv3 subtree searches without chasing of

referrals



• Exemplary search requests on the FL-DSA & CAB– The Dutch FL-DSA (1500K requests)

• 1300K baseObject search on objectClass• 60K onelevel search on objectClass• 20K baseObject search on cn• 10K onelevel search on ou• 8K onelevel search on cn• 5K onelevel search on o~• 4K onelevel search on o or ou • 4K subtree search on uid• 4K subtree search on cn• 3K subtree search on cn~ or sn~• 3K subtree search on ou• 3K subtree search on objectClass and cn• 2K subtree search on cn or sn or uid• 2K subtree search on sn• 72K + 60 other different searches



–The end user LDAP server (750K requests)• 640K baseObject search on objectClass• 53K onelevel search on objectClass• 20K onelevel search on o• 9K subtree search on cn or mail or sn• 3K subtree search on cn or mail or sn or

givenname• 2K subtree search on cn• 23K + 60 other different searches

–Very exotic filter settings for subtree searches• (|(cn=kluck)(sn=kluck)(uid=kluck)(ou=kluck))• (|(cn~=polak)(sn~=polak)(ou~=polak))• (|(mail=nie*)(|(cn=nie*)(|(sn=nie*)(givenname=nie*))))


What is tested and measured

• Defining the LDAP search filters– From ‘simple’ to ‘extravagant’ (with lots of booleans).– Must be dealt with by both LDAP/TIO servers

• The filter settings:1. (cn=foo)2. (cn=*foo*)3. (&(cn=foo)(sn=bar)) 4. (&(cn=*foo*)(sn=*bar*))5. (|(cn=foo)(sn=bar))6. (|(cn=*foo*)(sn=*bar*))7. (&(!(cn=foo))(sn=bar))8. (&(!(cn=foo))(sn=*bar*))9. (&(!(cn=not_a_foo_name))(sn=*bar*))10. (&(cn=foo)(sn=*bar*)(mail=*foo*)(givenname=*bar*))


What is tested and measured (cont.)

• Failed subtree searches– Lims:

• (&(!(cn~=*foo*))(sn~=*bar*))

• (&(!(cn=*foo*))(sn=*bar*)(mail=*bar*))

• (&(!(cn=*foo*))(&(|(cn=*bar*)(cn=*fiets*))(|(sn=*auto*)(sn=*trein*))))

• (|(cn~=foo)(sn~=bar)(ou~=bar))

– Desire:• (&(cn=*foo*)(|(sn=*bar*)(sn=*fiets*)))

• (&(|(sn=*foo*)(sn=*bar*))(cn=*fiets*))

• (&(!(cn=*foo*))(&(|(cn=*bar*)(cn=*fiets*))(|(sn=*auto*)(sn=*trein*))))

• (&(!(cn~=*foo*))(sn~=*bar*))

– No failures for IDDS


What is tested and measured (cont.)

• Performance test results– Number of requests per second for all 10 filters

• One single client (test run)

• Four clients with multiple threads (max 128)– Range: 4, 8 16, 32, 64, 128, 256 and 512 sessions

– Latency tests

• Measured during test-run– Hits and misses

• Every query must give one or more ‘hits’ ?– Both implementations are indifferent to hits or misses

– Measuring load on the index server

• Using ‘vmstat’ running at 10 sec. Interval


Desire LDAP/TIO-Index: Performance measurement


Desire: CPU load 4 to 64 simultaneous sessions


Lims LDAP/TIO Index: Performance measurement


Lims: CPU load 4 to 512 simultaneous sessions


IDDS: Performance measurement


IDDS: CPU load 4 to 512 simultaneous sessions


Lims: Heavy load performance measurement


Desire: CPU load 4 to 1024 simultaneous sessions


Latency tests

• Unloaded server with filter (&(cn=foo)(sn=bar))

–Desire: 1000 queries in 630 seconds

–Lims: 1000 queries in 8.95 seconds

–IDDS: 1000 queries in 8,92 seconds• Unloaded server with filter (&(cn=*foo*)(sn=*bar*))


–Lims: 1000 queries in 11,5 seconds

–IDDS: 1000 queries in 11,0 seconds


Latency tests (cont.)

• Heavy loaded server with filter (&(cn=foo)(sn=bar))


–Lims: 1000 queries in 17 seconds

–IDDS: 1000 queries in 61 seconds• Heavy loaded server with filter (&(cn=*foo*)

(sn=*bar*))

–Desire: 1000 queries in >7200 seconds

–Lims: 1000 queries in 24 seconds

–IDDS: 1000 queries in 69 seconds


Latency tests (cont.)

• System status index server

–In all cases enough free memory without swapping

–CPU for 100% occupied• 80% user-time; 20% system-time

–Lots of system interrupts and context-switches• 5000 interrupts per second

• 4000 context switches per second

–IDDS and Lims use threading–Desire does fork sub-processes


Exchanging TIOs between Desire and Lims

• To be done …


Conclusion

• The study of exchanging TIOs between Desire and Lims need to be finalized.

• The Lims LDAP/TIO-Index server performs better the the Desire LDAP/TIO-Index server with a factor of 100

• The Lims LDAP/TIO-Index server performs as good as Innosoft IDDS v4.51

• Complex LDAP filters with boolean operators or filtertypes like ‘approx’ are not supported by the Lims and Desire LDAP/TIO-Index server

Documents

TF-LSD TIO performanse test setup