Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

grouper-dev - Re: [grouper-dev] Subject API Slowness

Subject: Grouper Developers Forum

List archive

Re: [grouper-dev] Subject API Slowness

Chronological Thread 
  • From: Tom Barton <>
  • To:
  • Subject: Re: [grouper-dev] Subject API Slowness
  • Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:09:22 -0500


Although the jndi source adapter does not use connection pooling, your statement of problem makes me wonder if other issues are also at play here, ie, that these absurdly long times may be the result of more than just lack of connection pooling.

Some particulars below...

Mark Weber wrote:
We've started doing some initial load testing and found that it's pretty slow. Our initial estimates put a full load of our population into grouper, via the xml-import facility, would take about 8 days.

Could you give some basic facts & stats - what back-end database, how large its overall allocation, about how many "large" groups & "small" groups in the load, how deeply nested, how many employ non-default privileges.

I think I've narrowed it down to the Subject API. Specifically the Subject API configured using JNDI/LDAP adapter. For Instance, the UI takes 74 seconds to load the " All Groups - Current subjects with [xyz] privilege" page. It displays the first 50 members and creates a connection, bind, search, result, unbind, and disconnect for each person on the page. Same with the xml-import.

This is far from the fraction of a second I'm accustomed to seeing it take the jndi source adapter to display 50 subjects. I suspect there's another factor at play in this example, or perhaps your ldap server configuration (ACLs, authentication mechanism, other unknown operational params) might produce substantially different connection setup and query response times compared to the rather vanilla config of the openldap server I use for prototyping.

So, is there some configuration option that allows for connection pooling within the subject API when it's using LDAP?

Not in this version.

This is an assumption, but if we used the jdbc source adapter instead, would it use connection pooling and thereby eliminate the problem altogether?

I think it does indeed use connection pooling.


Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page