| 1 |
On 05/02/2013 12:58 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, May 02, 2013 at 12:33:37PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 05/02/2013 12:27 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> Hi, Gentoo. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>>> I've just built libreoffice-3.6.6.2 and it took 2 hours 10 |
| 7 |
>>> minutes on my 2.6 GHz quad core Athlon 2. It used to take about |
| 8 |
>>> an hour. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
>>> Watching the build, it became evident that the first 50 minutes |
| 11 |
>>> or so was taken up by several hundred mkdir operations (more |
| 12 |
>>> precisely, mkdir -p <long path>). Some of these mkdir's would |
| 13 |
>>> take, perhaps, a minute to execute. All the while, top showed |
| 14 |
>>> make taking 100% of one core. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>>> There seems to be something suboptimal here. Has anybody else |
| 17 |
>>> seen this, or does anybody have any ideas how to fix the |
| 18 |
>>> problem? |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
>> Long delays suggest a timeout of some sort. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> OK. As a matter of interest, some of the mkdirs executed relatively |
| 23 |
> quickly - perhaps in 0.5 seconds. I never saw the screen whizzing by |
| 24 |
> as I ought to have done, though. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Hm. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
>> First thing I'd look at is the filesystem underneath, and the disk |
| 30 |
>> underneath that. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> My /var is an ext3 LVM partition, doubled up on a RAID-1 disk array. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
How full is the ext3 partition? What options do you have enabled on it? |
| 35 |
(e.g. dir indexing?) |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> In the middle of the mkdiring, I checked there were enough inodes |
| 39 |
> free (there were). I've no reason to suspect the disk drives might |
| 40 |
> be flaky. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Well, you kinda do, now; you have evidence that at least some disk |
| 43 |
access is unusually slow. Check dmesg for disk I/O errors (unlikely to |
| 44 |
be reported at this point; I'm sure you checked whether your RAID was in |
| 45 |
a degraded state), and run commanded smartctl tests on the disks. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
>> Second thing I'd look at is to see if permissions checks might be |
| 49 |
>> bouncing through something like kerberos, samba or ldap. Do you |
| 50 |
>> have any single-signon things configured on that machine? |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
> I've not got kerberos or samba installed. I appear to have ldap |
| 53 |
> (whatever that might be ;-). ls -lurt /usr/bin/ldap* shows these |
| 54 |
> binaries were last accessed (?used) on 2012-03-14. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
It would be more a question of whether they were tied into PAM. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> What exactly do you mean by "single-signon"? |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Well, that was a slip of the tongue. More "central auth". I was |
| 62 |
wondering if there were any features installed on your system that are |
| 63 |
designed to check authorization against a server somewhere. (i.e. you |
| 64 |
can use an LDAP directory to centrally manage things like users, groups, |
| 65 |
etc.) |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
Technically, single-signon combines authorization checks with persistent |
| 68 |
authentication checks. Examples of this include kerberos, web session |
| 69 |
cookies and some uses of OAuth; once you're authenticated, the mechanism |
| 70 |
ensures you don't need to authenticate to another server in the same |
| 71 |
auth realm so long as your existing session hasn't expired. But this is |
| 72 |
less likely to be related to your problem than something seeking to ask |
| 73 |
a server if you have authorization to access something. |
Archives