Proper Server for RT

Hello Everyone,

I was wondering what everyone was running RT on. I’m looking to purchase a
new server to run RT on. The users here are complaining that its too slow. I
hear the drives churning loudly as well. I’m wondering if its a software
issue or an actual network issue. Currently I have it running on the
following.

  • Digital PWS600au
  • FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE
  • 256MB of RAM
  • 2 SCSI-2 HDD’s 4GB (system) 8GB (backup)
  • Apache 1.3.22
  • mod_perl 1.2.6

Thanks to everyone for making RT an easier experience to work with.

Kind Regards,
Ramon Crespo

If you haven’t already, take a look at the performance and
tuning sections of the mod_perl guide (http://perl.apache.org/guide/).
Stas also had several articles on apacheweek.com recently focusing on
tuning.

Fletch | "If you find my answers frightening, `’/|
fletch@phydeaux.org | Vincent, you should cease askin’ \ o.O’
770 933-0600 x211(w) | scary questions." – Jules =(
_)=
770 294-0820 (m) | U

also look at turing your database, I found that to be abuot 60% of my
speed issues, the rest was/is bad database design,specifically the watchers
table (sorry jesse).

Mat.

also look at turing your database,

‘turing’?

-Robin

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I’m male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku’i .oi le so’e datni cu to’e te pilno
je xlali – RLP http://www.lojban.org/

haha. tuning.

I actually was seriously asking the question, for the record. Turing
did a lot of stuff; for all I knew that included database theory. 8)

-RobinOn Tue, May 07, 2002 at 11:53:15AM +1000, Matthew Watson wrote:

haha. tuning.

-----Original Message-----
From: rt-users-admin@lists.fsck.com
[mailto:rt-users-admin@lists.fsck.com]On Behalf Of Robin Lee Powell
Sent: Tuesday, 7 May 2002 7:59 AM
To: rt-users@fsck.com
Subject: Re: [rt-users] Proper Server for RT

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 07:53:08AM +1000, Mat wrote:

also look at turing your database,

‘turing’?

-Robin

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ BTW, I’m male, honest.
le datni cu djica le nu zifre .iku’i .oi le so’e datni cu to’e te pilno
je xlali – RLP http://www.lojban.org/

also look at turing your database, I found that to be abuot 60% of my
speed issues, the rest was/is bad database design,specifically the watchers
table (sorry jesse).

Can you comment on what tuning you’ve done to improve your
performance? Is it mainly indexing tables? Does RT set up table
indexes? If not, perhaps it should (I keep meaning to look at this,
but always get sidetracked before I get to it).

Perhaps you’d also care to comment on how the design of the database
might be improved, so that future releases can be improved (if someone
decides to look into it…)?

Derek Martin
Lead Network Engineer
ddm@skillsoft.com
(603)324-3000 x516

Hello Derek,

I’m not sure about the specifics of the database schema, but the indexing
matter was discussed in detail during August 2001 and following. Here are a
couple of links:

http://lists.fsck.com/pipermail/rt-users/2001-August/003758.html

http://lists.fsck.com/pipermail/rt-users/2002-January/006103.html (I think
this addresses the second portion of your questions)

GeorgeFrom: Derek D. Martin [mailto:ddm@skillsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2002 11:28 AM
To: Mat
Cc: Rt-Users (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [rt-users] Proper Server for RT

also look at turing your database, I found that to be abuot 60% of my
speed issues, the rest was/is bad database design,specifically the
watchers
table (sorry jesse).

Can you comment on what tuning you’ve done to improve your
performance? Is it mainly indexing tables? Does RT set up table
indexes? If not, perhaps it should (I keep meaning to look at this,
but always get sidetracked before I get to it).

Perhaps you’d also care to comment on how the design of the database
might be improved, so that future releases can be improved (if someone
decides to look into it…)?

Derek Martin
Lead Network Engineer
ddm@skillsoft.com
(603)324-3000 x516

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

Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at http://fsck.com/rtfm

This email message may contain information that is confidential and
proprietary to Babcock & Brown or a third party. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender and destroy the original and
any copies of the original message. Babcock & Brown takes measures to
protect the content of its communications. However, Babcock & Brown cannot
guarantee that email messages will not be intercepted by third parties or
that email messages will be free of errors or viruses.

Can you comment on what tuning you’ve done to improve your
performance? Is it mainly indexing tables? Does RT set up table
indexes? If not, perhaps it should (I keep meaning to look at this,
but always get sidetracked before I get to it).

Main tuning is just making sure mysql has enough memory avaliable so that it
is not
swapping out large sort tables onto disk.
I found that when rt needs to resolve a requestor using the watchers table
that
it does not touch the indexes in place, i’ve also tried in vain to try
and create an index that gets used (even went to the mysql mailing list),
but
still, this query looks at every single row, creating a major bottle neck. I
believe the way the watchers table is set up that its not possible to
get mysql to use an index on it (I could be wrong, would have to go
back and have alook at the mysql docs)

Perhaps you’d also care to comment on how the design of the database
might be improved, so that future releases can be improved (if someone
decides to look into it…)?

I believe jeese has totally redesigned how watchers (and therefor
requestors) work
with the latest development release of rt. Also he is using innodb tables
which
should make things much happier (as large queries shouldn’t lock the entire
table, stopping everything behind them). Basically some schema that is
able to have an index against it will be good, but I ain’t no dba,so what
exactly the best one would be has me stumped :slight_smile:

Mat Watson
Netspace online systems.

Hello Everyone,

I was wondering what everyone was running RT on. I’m looking to purchase a
new server to run RT on. The users here are complaining that its too slow. I
hear the drives churning loudly as well. I’m wondering if its a software
issue or an actual network issue. Currently I have it running on the
following.

  • Digital PWS600au
  • FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE
  • 256MB of RAM
  • 2 SCSI-2 HDD’s 4GB (system) 8GB (backup)
  • Apache 1.3.22
  • mod_perl 1.2.6

Mine is Intel Server:
CPU: Pentium III/Pentium III Xeon/Celeron (447.69-MHz 686-class CPU)
FreeBSD 4.5-STABLE
256MB RAM
2 SCSI-2 HDD 17GB Each
Apache 1.3.24
mod_perl 1.2.6

Other than this it runs Exim, tpop3d, MySQL, Imap… everything.
Noone has said it’s slow, even myself :wink:
Everything opens okay.

    cheers
   - wash 

Odhiambo Washington, wash@wananchi.com . WANANCHI ONLINE LTD (Nairobi, KE)
http://ns2.wananchi.com/~wash/ . 1ere Etage, Loita Hse, Loita St.,
GSM: (254) 722 743 223 . # 10286, 00100 NAIROBI
"Oh My God! They killed init! You Bastards!"
–from a /. post

``That Ariel Sharon. Boy, he sure is controversial.
Most Western countries would have to have a military coup
before they enjoyed a leader of that caliber.’’ (Sydney Webb)

I was wondering what everyone was running RT on. I’m looking to purchase a
new server to run RT on. The users here are complaining that its too slow. I
hear the drives churning loudly as well. I’m wondering if its a software
issue or an actual network issue. Currently I have it running on the
following.

  • Digital PWS600au
  • FreeBSD 4.5-RELEASE
  • 256MB of RAM
  • 2 SCSI-2 HDD’s 4GB (system) 8GB (backup)
  • Apache 1.3.22
  • mod_perl 1.2.6

Ramon, that is almost exactly one of my configurations, except I’m using
Linux and the Alpha has less memory. I use the Apache and Psql
optimisations that people here keep suggesting (and I keep meaning to add
to the docs.) However, my load is almost exclusively artificially
generated, and not very well at that :slight_smile:

If you compare with Odhiambo’s hardware, I’d say what you have is probably
faster, except the hard drives may have a bit slower spin rate.

Dan Shearer
Open Source Manager
dan@tellurian.com.au