lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Raise/discuss any potential issues with MailEnable for consideration in project issue register.
Post Reply
webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:09 am

I've noticed an issue where LSASS.exe is causing a jump in memory resources when a user launches outlook with MAPI client. I've replicated this issue on my own system and watched LSASS.exe jump 100mb when I open outlook, then nothing is released when outlook is then closed.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:50 am

It grows again when I reopen outlook by about 7mb after initial 100mb.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

MailEnable
Site Admin
Posts: 4441
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:03 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria Australia

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by MailEnable » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:11 am

Is the LSASS process on the server or on the client? ie: Are you saying that LSASS jumps on the server or on the client machine when you open a client side outlook connection.
From what you have mentioned, it is probably more likely to be client side.

If it is occurring on the client, then it is very unlikely to be caused by the MAPI connector (because it does not initiate LSASS related functions - other than for SSL Communication) (and, 100MB is a lot).

Outlook itself (irrespective of whether it is configured to use MAPI, IMAP or POP) can use a large number of resources (particularly if antivirus plugins are activated).
ie: it is possible that it may be outlook itself doing this. But this can be validated by using a profile with the inbred Outlook IMAP capability.

Also, I just did a basic test of a profile containing 5 very large message stores (2103/64 on Windows 8) and LSASS remained around 22 MB of Working Memory (on the client).
In this scenario, I was not using SSL however; but I did another basic test via SSL and it had LSASS at 11MB (fluctuating by 1 MB or so as outlook was loaded).
Regards, Andrew

webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:20 am

It was happening on the server. The process is up to 1.7gb right now.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:22 am

Also, I can't imagine anyone NOT using SSL now-a-days. All testing on your end should be done with SSL.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:24 am

Restarting mailenable services dropped lsass.exe on the -server- down to 417mb. Oops, no it just dropped to 260mb. Again, only after restarting all mailenable services.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

MailEnable
Site Admin
Posts: 4441
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 3:03 am
Location: Melbourne, Victoria Australia

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by MailEnable » Mon Oct 07, 2013 6:59 am

As I said, I did test with SSL (to see if I could reproduce the behaviour you mentioned). My confusion was moreover whether you were referring to the LSASS service of the client or the server.
We will run a soak test against the IMAP server over SSL and monitor the behaviour of the server LSASS. I'll post when we know more. Thanks.
Regards, Andrew

webshaun
Posts: 246
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 8:37 pm
Location: NJ
Contact:

Re: lsass.exe memory usage with MAPI

Post by webshaun » Mon Oct 07, 2013 7:32 am

Server is 2008 R2 64bit Standard, ME latest version though it was the same for the previous release as well. Not sure when it started but it must be pretty recent.
---
Shaun Rieman
Advanced Micro Technologies, LLC

Post Reply