I want to install RT 3.0.4 on red hat linux 9, do anyone know what is the
minimum hardware requirement?
Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk
I want to install RT 3.0.4 on red hat linux 9, do anyone know what is the
minimum hardware requirement?
Get 10Mb extra storage for MSN Hotmail. Subscribe Now!
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-hk
rt-users mailing list
rt-users@lists.fsck.com
http://lists.fsck.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-usersHave you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm
Fist off, whatever the requirement of RH9.
You’ll need Apache 1.3 or newer.
Mysql 3.x or newer
mod_perl 1 or newer
perl 5.8
As the main requirements.
I have a testserver which is an old Sun Ultra5 with a ~250 mhz sparc cpu
and 128 mb ram. It runs Debian GNU/Linux, and has a working RT instance,
though its quite slow.
/rhb
Ada Hui wrote:
I want to install RT 3.0.4 on red hat linux 9, do anyone know what is
the minimum hardware requirement?
most of the grunt work of RT is done by the SQL daemon so as long as the
hardware can sustain the number of queries you are fine.
As Rasmus points out, the “minimum” hardware can be quite small. It is
more about the quality of service you give the users of the system.
If RT is only going to be accesses by a small team, then you can go
quite small. If you plan to use this for a corporation / call center
with lots of people always accessing it you should plan for more hardware.
A good starting point would be to see what your sql daemon of choice
says about hardware requirements. Then go read what the apache group
has to say.
I want to install RT 3.0.4 on red hat linux 9, do anyone know what is
the minimum hardware requirement?most of the grunt work of RT is done by the SQL daemon so as long as
the hardware can sustain the number of queries you are fine.
For me, the Perl/Mason code running in the webserver is the bottleneck,
not the database. In any case, if you miscalculate and need to scale
up, you can do so by moving the database server to a separate machine;
the configuration is no more difficult than when the database runs on
the same machine.
On my platform (Mac OS X 10.2), the web server (apache 1.3.27 with
mod_perl 1.28) uses 3 times* as much CPU as the database (postgresql
7.3.4) – the difference would probably be even greater for MySQL. I
would be interested in knowing other people’s ratios.
I use RT3 on a dual CPU 1.2 GHz PowerMac with 1.5 GB RAM (this machine
is used for other things), and the performance is acceptable but
slightly disappointing for the 3 people who use it (not very heavily)
– even when the server is not doing anything else. By disappointing
I mean “sluggish enough that I wonder how well it would perform with
more users or a bigger database”.
Mason, which RT is built on, is cool technology, but some benchmarks
suggest that it is slow as a dog (think dachshund rather than whippet)
– see http://www.chamas.com/bench/. It also tends to use a large
amount of memory (which won’t matter on modern machines with >128MB
RAM).
That being said, I don’t regret picking RT (about a week into the
experience).
-Kevin Murphy
- ps aux time figures for apache and postgres processes launched at
the same time 3 days ago:
apache: 6.16+13.67+15.37+18.67+11.91+13.37+13.34+14.37+12.08 = 118.94
postgres: 4.73+4.63+3.9+6.85+3.79+3.98+5.41+3.89 = 37.18
ratio of web/db: 118.94/37.18 = 3.2
Hopefully this comparison is valid - call me on this if not.
Kevin Murphy wrote:
I want to install RT 3.0.4 on red hat linux 9, do anyone know what is
the minimum hardware requirement?most of the grunt work of RT is done by the SQL daemon so as long as
the hardware can sustain the number of queries you are fine.For me, the Perl/Mason code running in the webserver is the bottleneck,
not the database. In any case, if you miscalculate and need to scale
up, you can do so by moving the database server to a separate machine;
the configuration is no more difficult than when the database runs on
the same machine.On my platform (Mac OS X 10.2), the web server (apache 1.3.27 with
mod_perl 1.28) uses 3 times* as much CPU as the database (postgresql
7.3.4) – the difference would probably be even greater for MySQL. I
would be interested in knowing other people’s ratios.
I went with mysql here because there were already mysql installs when I
started (don’t change things as a new hire).
I see about equivalent hardware use between apache and mysql. If
anything the apache + perl uses more memory.
Perhaps the perl on OS X is not particularly optimized?
I use RT3 on a dual CPU 1.2 GHz PowerMac with 1.5 GB RAM (this machine
is used for other things), and the performance is acceptable but
slightly disappointing for the 3 people who use it (not very heavily) –
even when the server is not doing anything else. By disappointing I
mean “sluggish enough that I wonder how well it would perform with more
users or a bigger database”.Mason, which RT is built on, is cool technology, but some benchmarks
suggest that it is slow as a dog (think dachshund rather than whippet)
– see http://www.chamas.com/bench/. It also tends to use a large
amount of memory (which won’t matter on modern machines with >128MB RAM).That being said, I don’t regret picking RT (about a week into the
experience).
with close to 200 tickets and 20 some users I am not too upset with the
performance. But it would be nice if something other than Mason had
been picked. A bit late now though.
When we have 1,000 tickets will see how things shape up.