This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
31
German / Re: Backup
« on: October 23, 2016, 10:52:41 am »
So wie ich das sehe, müssen solche Daten separat gesichert werden, d.h. Mail und shares. Zumindest für Mail wird auch darauf hingewiesen.
32
Email and Groupware / Re: error downloading attachments in windows phone (8.1 and 10) and mail app windows
« on: October 23, 2016, 10:48:30 am »
Just a friendly side comment re. Outlook app.
Please keep in mind that outlook ("mobile") does not access your servers directly, but only via Microsoft's servers. With this you store and give away your login data to MS, they pickup your mail from the exchange server and store them in their infrastructure.
This is only mentioned deeply hidden in their terms.
For me personally, this is a no go.
It also seems to create issues in non native MS environment...
Please keep in mind that outlook ("mobile") does not access your servers directly, but only via Microsoft's servers. With this you store and give away your login data to MS, they pickup your mail from the exchange server and store them in their infrastructure.
This is only mentioned deeply hidden in their terms.
For me personally, this is a no go.
It also seems to create issues in non native MS environment...
33
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 15, 2016, 05:44:25 pm »
Just an idea:
Does your server change its behavior if you'd re-condition the AD, without changing anything else...?
I was just thinking if the heap data may be linked to DNS updates, causing error. (2nd DC, dead DC's, etc)
So, what would happen with a freshly configured and mainly empty AD?
update:
I did some trials and set up a new (virtual) server on a separate machine. Installed all the software, modules, etc and set up a new AD. Memory didn't show any increase.
After one day I made a recovery from a backup. Same machine, same software releases. And... memory increase is back.
This really seems to turn out to be an AD related issue.
Update2:
Cleaned up the AD, using LDAP Admin tool Professional (trial).
Deleted all dead DC's, related replication settings, etc. In short: Any sign of non-existing other DC's.
after 2 hours, it looks like memory stays perfectly low.
Update3: After one full day, memory still good. I consider this solved.
Does your server change its behavior if you'd re-condition the AD, without changing anything else...?
I was just thinking if the heap data may be linked to DNS updates, causing error. (2nd DC, dead DC's, etc)
So, what would happen with a freshly configured and mainly empty AD?
update:
I did some trials and set up a new (virtual) server on a separate machine. Installed all the software, modules, etc and set up a new AD. Memory didn't show any increase.
After one day I made a recovery from a backup. Same machine, same software releases. And... memory increase is back.
This really seems to turn out to be an AD related issue.
Update2:
Cleaned up the AD, using LDAP Admin tool Professional (trial).
Deleted all dead DC's, related replication settings, etc. In short: Any sign of non-existing other DC's.
after 2 hours, it looks like memory stays perfectly low.
Update3: After one full day, memory still good. I consider this solved.
34
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 15, 2016, 01:25:03 pm »I did further investigation what is different with these processes and found util pmap (which lists memory usage of process), but i am not any wiser:
It looks like this:Code: [Select]# pmap -X 15098
15098: samba -D
Address Perm Offset Device Inode Size Rss Pss Referenced Anonymous Swap Locked Mapping
5609461e2000 r-xp 00000000 fd:01 1193099 60 60 4 60 0 0 0 samba
5609463f1000 r--p 0000f000 fd:01 1193099 4 4 0 0 4 0 0 samba
5609463f2000 rw-p 00010000 fd:01 1193099 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 samba
56094698d000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 132 72 35 48 72 60 0 [heap]
5609469ae000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 28724 26780 25686 25992 26780 1944 0 [heap]
5609485bb000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 752248 752228 752228 719872 752228 0 0 [heap]
...................
and problematic is the heap which uses actually 752MB RAM out of 1,3GB of whole process and getting bigger. When I used pmap -XX i didn't get more info, and with pmap -x i just received info that it is anonymous and "dirty". It looks like samba is using memory for something and doesn't cleanup. I can't get any more info.
If you have any tips which tools use to troubleshoot, i am open to any suggestions. Till that, we need to restart the samba service every 3 days.
Well, I can confirm this finding.
Here's my output after roughly 24 hrs running.
Code: [Select]
Address Perm Offset Device Inode Size Rss Pss Referenced Anonymous Shared_Hugetlb Private_Hugetlb Swap SwapPss Locked Mapping
55db84809000 r-xp 00000000 fc:00 7608422 60 56 4 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 samba
55db84a18000 r--p 0000f000 fc:00 7608422 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 samba
55db84a19000 rw-p 00010000 fc:00 7608422 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 samba
55db84ad9000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 132 60 20 48 60 0 0 72 8 0 [heap]
55db84afa000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 48424 45320 21474 31304 45320 0 0 3104 779 0 [heap]
55db87a44000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 2358428 2037716 1023042 1336160 2037716 0 0 320712 160368 0 [heap]
Address Perm Offset Device Inode Size Rss Pss Shared_Clean Shared_Dirty Private_Clean Private_Dirty Referenced Anonymous AnonHugePages Shared_Hugetlb Private_Hugetlb Swap SwapPss KernelPageSize MMUPageSize Locked VmFlagsMapping
55db87a44000 rw-p 00000000 00:00 0 2361952 1999132 1999132 0 0 8904 1990228 1339564 1999132 382976 0 0 362820 362820 4 4 0 rd wr mr mw me ac sd [heap]
The last line was extracted form using -XX to get more information, but I'm afraid this is way too far beyond my skills.
However, I understand that samba seems to build an internal data collection (heap), which is not limiting itself and constantly grows.
I read that there was a serious vulnerability in versions before 4.3.2, which also was related to problematic heap buffer memory overflow. But after this, there's no "heap" mentioned in any later change log.
35
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 14, 2016, 10:18:55 pm »
I know this thread well, but it's something completely different. There was a soft lock on a core, here we look at a memory issue.
I can also confirm the softlock is gone using the up-to-date kernel.
I can also confirm the softlock is gone using the up-to-date kernel.
36
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 12, 2016, 06:54:49 pm »
One other thing I wonder about:
Why does zentyal build its own samba package?
Is that necessary and what is the difference from the ubuntu stock package provided?
Actually I'm wondering because this problem seems somehow limited to this relatively small "zentyal world".
What if.... this package contains some errors?
What would happen if one would install a stock package over the zentyal one?
Ubuntu official version of samba package seems to be 4.3.11 now, right?
Why does zentyal build its own samba package?
Code: [Select]
samba --show-build
Samba version: 4.3.4-Zentyal
Build environment:
Build host: Linux ci01.hq.zentyal.com 3.13.0-77-generic #121-Ubuntu SMP Wed Jan 20 10:50:42 UTC 2016 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Is that necessary and what is the difference from the ubuntu stock package provided?
Actually I'm wondering because this problem seems somehow limited to this relatively small "zentyal world".
What if.... this package contains some errors?
What would happen if one would install a stock package over the zentyal one?
Ubuntu official version of samba package seems to be 4.3.11 now, right?
37
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 12, 2016, 06:34:06 pm »As I stated we have more similar zentyal servers (same zentyal version, same samba version, same kernel different users) and just one has this problem.
Actually I also tried installation on different systems, such as an AMD on an HP platform, Intel dual Core on Lenovo IBM and now finally Pentium D on an spare HP Proliant server. Certainly completely different chip sets, however, always the same core installation (I just switched the disk).
I found this on all three machines, so I was pretty sure that it should be not hardware related. Following your statement, I wonder what would happen if one makes a completely new installation and then uploads a backup to see if it can be tracked down to an installation issue?
38
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 12, 2016, 06:27:58 pm »
I wonder why this cannot be found at any of the official samba mailing groups, yet?
If it were only every 3 days, I would be more relaxed, but the system im running this on has only 4GB and 50% of it is gone within a single day, sometimes even less.
This really keeps me from using zentyal on any additional machines, although I find it a nice piece of cake in general.
It's not that one could blame zentyal as such for it, but at the end, it's not reliable and therefore not usable in a professional condition. It's very sad.
Frankly, I'm already spending too much time with this issue, it's annoying.
If it were only every 3 days, I would be more relaxed, but the system im running this on has only 4GB and 50% of it is gone within a single day, sometimes even less.
This really keeps me from using zentyal on any additional machines, although I find it a nice piece of cake in general.
It's not that one could blame zentyal as such for it, but at the end, it's not reliable and therefore not usable in a professional condition. It's very sad.
Frankly, I'm already spending too much time with this issue, it's annoying.
39
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 09, 2016, 04:24:42 pm »
allitsk,
Can you please check your samba.log if you find this error:
In case, please check /var/lib/samba/private/dns.keytab if it root:named / 644?
In my case it was root:root 640.
After correcting this, error is gone and - although I still need to check a longer period, it seems the samba process does not grow larger than roughly 300k (used) after 7 hrs.
UDATE: OK, maybe I was way to optimistic. It's now slowly building up again, already at >700K. :-(
Can you please check your samba.log if you find this error:
Code: [Select]
/usr/sbin/samba_dnsupdate: dns_tkey_negotiategss: TKEY is unacceptable
In case, please check /var/lib/samba/private/dns.keytab if it root:named / 644?
In my case it was root:root 640.
After correcting this, error is gone and - although I still need to check a longer period, it seems the samba process does not grow larger than roughly 300k (used) after 7 hrs.
Code: [Select]
root 8549 5.9 8.6 810420 310324 ? S 14:18 7:25 \_ samba -D
UDATE: OK, maybe I was way to optimistic. It's now slowly building up again, already at >700K. :-(
40
German / Re: toten bdc entfernen
« on: October 09, 2016, 02:29:54 pm »
Ein samba-tool domain demote --remove-other-dead-server=srv02
schlägt auch fehl.
Das geht erst ab Version 4.5.0. Zentyal (4.2.2) arbeitet mit samba 4.3.4.
41
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Samba - High memory usage
« on: October 09, 2016, 01:21:20 pm »Hi insigIT,
plz refer to this thread https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,27362.new.html#new for further infos.
All kernels from Linux 3.19.0-47-generic (included) are afflicted bye the bug.
I think this is not the same. This issue was about a CPU lock, but it seems solved with newer kernels. I'm using 4.x now and it doesn't happen anymore.
However, this issue here is about the memory being eaten up by the samba process.
43
Directory and Authentication / Re: Zentyal 4.2.2 samba high memory usage
« on: October 09, 2016, 10:43:06 am »
See here https://forum.zentyal.org/index.php/topic,27428.0.html
I have the same issue, even with newest kernel 4.x. Just over night and with no clients online, memory sums up to over 2GB.
This is the status only after 16 hours running only as mail server:
It's pid 30514 now already at 15% of the memory. I have samba 4.3.4 running with 4.4.0-38 kernel, so it's still a persistent problem.
I have the same issue, even with newest kernel 4.x. Just over night and with no clients online, memory sums up to over 2GB.
This is the status only after 16 hours running only as mail server:
Code: [Select]
root 30492 0.0 2.1 559028 76752 ? Ss 09:28 0:00 samba -D
root 30506 0.0 1.5 559028 53932 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30509 0.0 2.2 546544 81656 ? Ss 09:29 0:00 | \_ /usr/sbin/smbd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30523 0.0 1.4 530164 53656 ? S 09:29 0:00 | \_ /usr/sbin/smbd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30538 0.0 1.5 546544 54720 ? S 09:29 0:00 | \_ /usr/sbin/smbd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30507 0.0 1.9 690384 69244 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30508 0.0 1.7 563180 61924 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30510 0.0 1.5 559028 53932 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30511 0.5 2.0 565316 73184 ? S 09:29 1:12 \_ samba -D
root 30512 0.0 1.5 559028 54524 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30513 0.0 1.8 569500 66020 ? S 09:29 0:01 \_ samba -D
root 30514 7.0 15.6 1062944 563008 ? S 09:29 16:31 \_ samba -D
root 26426 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? R 13:22 0:00 | \_ [samba]
root 30515 0.0 1.5 559028 53932 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30516 0.0 2.0 563180 74952 ? S 09:29 0:08 \_ samba -D
root 30517 0.0 1.5 559028 57140 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30518 0.0 1.5 559028 53932 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ samba -D
root 30520 0.0 2.1 498160 76836 ? Ss 09:29 0:01 \_ /usr/sbin/winbindd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30524 0.0 1.7 510128 61972 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/winbindd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30527 0.0 1.6 498160 58204 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/winbindd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
root 30529 0.0 1.5 498160 54504 ? S 09:29 0:00 \_ /usr/sbin/winbindd -D --option=server role check:inhibit=yes --foreground
It's pid 30514 now already at 15% of the memory. I have samba 4.3.4 running with 4.4.0-38 kernel, so it's still a persistent problem.
44
Installation and Upgrades / Re: Samba - High memory usage
« on: October 08, 2016, 11:06:15 am »
Folks,
Could we try to have a better view on this topic, please?
It appears even with kernel 4.4.0-38-generic, RAM is filling up virtually over night using >2GB (on a 3GB usable RAM / 4GB total memory system) and leaving only bit and pieces free. Soon the server tends to become highly unresponsive. Restarting samba module cleans up memory.
I do not want to believe this is strictly kernel related and ignored from the samba community. If this would be a general issue with samba 4 (and/or its AD capabilities), I'm sure it would have been solved already.
This is really getting annoying as it leaves the server unstable and barely usable, but I'm not a samba pro with enough insight to solve this on my own.
Anybody having an idea how to pin this down?
Could we try to have a better view on this topic, please?
It appears even with kernel 4.4.0-38-generic, RAM is filling up virtually over night using >2GB (on a 3GB usable RAM / 4GB total memory system) and leaving only bit and pieces free. Soon the server tends to become highly unresponsive. Restarting samba module cleans up memory.
I do not want to believe this is strictly kernel related and ignored from the samba community. If this would be a general issue with samba 4 (and/or its AD capabilities), I'm sure it would have been solved already.
This is really getting annoying as it leaves the server unstable and barely usable, but I'm not a samba pro with enough insight to solve this on my own.
Anybody having an idea how to pin this down?
45
Installation and Upgrades / Re: HowTo: add radius module with mschap support to zentyal 4.0, 4.1, 4.2
« on: October 04, 2016, 06:14:15 pm »
You're my man, Julio! It worked!
Thank's so much, you've made more than 40 refugees happy. They can now use their WiFi AP again.
So easy after all, but when you're sitting in the middle of a forest, it's hard to see a single tree ;-)
Thank's so much, you've made more than 40 refugees happy. They can now use their WiFi AP again.
So easy after all, but when you're sitting in the middle of a forest, it's hard to see a single tree ;-)