Machine requirements?

RT Users
1

Hi,

We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
installing on, and what response times do they get?

Thanks,

Simon.

2

hi simon,

the hardware i have here:

pii 500 / 512mb ram
ide hd system / linx redhat 7.1

apache / mod_perl / mysql

use rt 2.0.7 with about 6300 tickets, works quite fast (listing less than
2 second) - its fast enough for my slow processor / ide-harddrive :slight_smile:

chrisOn Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Simon Thornington wrote:

*Hi,
*We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
*as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
*which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
*simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
*times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
*installing on, and what response times do they get?
*Thanks,
*Simon.
*rt-users mailing list
*rt-users@lists.fsck.com
*http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

3

When setting up a web server and sql backend, while processor speed should
be considered, often the greatest factor is memory. A PIII 800 with 64
megs, will process sql and web slower than a PII 400 with 512 megs of ram.

(this comes from internal testing here)

The cost of memory is dirt cheap now, as are PII, PIII, and Athlon
processors, consider upgrading.-----Original Message-----
From: rt-users-admin@lists.fsck.com
[mailto:rt-users-admin@lists.fsck.com]On Behalf Of Simon Thornington
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 1:00 PM
To: rt-users@lists.fsck.com
Subject: [rt-users] machine requirements?

Hi,

We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
installing on, and what response times do they get?

Thanks,

Simon.

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

4

Part of what you’re seeing is processor related. Part of it is the fact that
RT’s commandline tools have to compile/interpret RT each time they run.On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:59:41PM -0400, Simon Thornington wrote:

Hi,

We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
installing on, and what response times do they get?

Thanks,

Simon.

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.

5

Well, I’ve reduced that number of httpd children to 1, to save the 11MB of
the previous four children, and the web site is picking up a bit. I
wonder how difficult it would be to write an RT shell?

Simon.On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jesse Vincent wrote:

Part of what you’re seeing is processor related. Part of it is the fact that
RT’s commandline tools have to compile/interpret RT each time they run.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:59:41PM -0400, Simon Thornington wrote:

Hi,

We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
installing on, and what response times do they get?

Thanks,

Simon.

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.

6

Not terribly hard, actually. Most of the CLI tool was built to be able to do that. But it could stand some serious cleanup.On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 02:28:44PM -0400, Simon Thornington wrote:

Well, I’ve reduced that number of httpd children to 1, to save the 11MB of
the previous four children, and the web site is picking up a bit. I
wonder how difficult it would be to write an RT shell?

Simon.

On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Jesse Vincent wrote:

Part of what you’re seeing is processor related. Part of it is the fact that
RT’s commandline tools have to compile/interpret RT each time they run.

On Thu, Sep 27, 2001 at 12:59:41PM -0400, Simon Thornington wrote:

Hi,

We’re running an RT 2.0.6 install on a Pentium something (not a P2+ as far
as I know) with Postgres. A command-line rt summary of open tickets (of
which there are about 70-100) takes about 10 seconds. Is this machine
simply not fast enough for an RT install, or is this the kind of response
times other people are getting? What sort of hardware are people
installing on, and what response times do they get?

Thanks,

Simon.

rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

–
http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.

http://www.bestpractical.com/products/rt – Trouble Ticketing. Free.