For write rates see https://wiki.zimbra.com/wiki/OpenLDAP_MDB_vs_HDB_performance
> On Sep 17, 2015, at 8:06 AM, Quanah Gibson-Mount <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tools that do not provide distributed capabilities are generally worthless > for benching marking LDAP as the client itself is the bottleneck. > > For read rates see > https://mishikal.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/openldap-a-comparison-of-back-mdb-and-back-hdb-performance/ > > --Quanah > > >> On Sep 17, 2015, at 6:26 AM, Philip Colmer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We're currently using OpenLDAP 2.4.38 on our production server using >> HDB as the database type. I wanted to upgrade to the latest version >> and take advantage of LMDB as the database type so I've built a second >> server and transferred the data. >> >> Before making that server the production server, we're running >> performance comparisons, using ldclt[1] as a stress test tool. >> >> I don't know if anyone else has got any experience of using this tool; >> the output we're getting when running the tool doesn't show >> significant differences in performance, but I'm not sure if it is just >> the test type we're running or the fact that, actually, we shouldn't >> be expecting significant differences ... >> >> I've included the output below. I've removed the details of our >> servers from the command line. >> >> Can someone who has made a transition from HDB to LMDB give an >> indication of whether or not we should see a performance difference on >> LDAP queries and, if yes, by what sort of factor? >> >> If you are familiar with ldclt, should we be running different tests >> to get a better insight into how the two servers compare? >> >> Thanks. >> >> Philip >> >> [1] http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19957-01/816-6400-10/ldclt.html >> >> 2.4.38 with HDB: >> ldclt -f uid=testXXXXX -e esearch,random -r0 -R99999 -I 32 >> ldclt version 4.23 >> ldclt[1979]: Starting at Thu Sep 17 11:28:51 2015 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 109.70/thr ( 109.70/sec), total: 1097 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 115.00/thr ( 115.00/sec), total: 1150 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 111.90/thr ( 111.90/sec), total: 1119 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 115.20/thr ( 115.20/sec), total: 1152 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 113.70/thr ( 113.70/sec), total: 1137 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 111.20/thr ( 111.20/sec), total: 1112 >> ldclt[1979]: Average rate: 114.80/thr ( 114.80/sec), total: 1148 >> ldclt[1979]: Global average rate: 1021.10/thr (113.46/sec), total: 10211 >> >> 2.4.41 with MDB: >> ldclt -f uid=testXXXXX -e esearch,random -r0 -R99999 -I 32 >> ldclt version 4.23 >> ldclt[1967]: Starting at Thu Sep 17 11:26:55 2015 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 109.70/thr ( 109.70/sec), total: 1097 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 111.00/thr ( 111.00/sec), total: 1110 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.20/thr ( 112.20/sec), total: 1122 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 113.00/thr ( 113.00/sec), total: 1130 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.70/thr ( 112.70/sec), total: 1127 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.50/thr ( 112.50/sec), total: 1125 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 113.00/thr ( 113.00/sec), total: 1130 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.80/thr ( 112.80/sec), total: 1128 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.30/thr ( 112.30/sec), total: 1123 >> ldclt[1967]: Average rate: 112.90/thr ( 112.90/sec), total: 1129 >> ldclt[1967]: Global average rate: 1122.10/thr (112.21/sec), total: 11221 >
