Is not 24 fast and 40 list an overkill with 80-100 users? -- Jarl
On Jan 15, 2008 3:41 PM, Craig Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ** > > > > All, > > > > We're running into some performance problems recently. I upgraded the > server a few days ago (operating system, database, CPUs, memory, queues, > etc, and it hasn't helped much. Basically, it takes longer to search and > create tickets as more and more people log in (as expected) but the server > has plenty of available CPU, plenty of memory, and plenty of bandwidth so it > appears there is a bottleneck somewhere. > > > > 8 CPUs > > 16GB Memory > > Windows Server 2003 Enterprise > > SQL Server 2005 Enterprise > > ARS v7.0.1 P5 (CSS and custom apps—no ITSM) > > 24 Fast, 40 List > > > > It flies with about 40 people, becomes sluggish with 80, and gets real slow > with 100. I would expect this system to be able to handle a much larger > load. Since the running CPU usage and disk usage is fairly low, I'm looking > for advice. > > > > Everything is currently installed on the same server and on the same drive > (although these are raid drives). Is it possible we're seeing contention > over disk resources and I/O? Any advice on determining where the bottleneck > is or from people administering a large number of users? How much advantage > would be gained by running the AR Server on another drive or box separate > from the database? Is it reasonable to expect to only get 100 concurrent > users (using the WUT) on a server of this size? > > > > Looking in the docs and whitepapers but any advice would be helpful since > this is impacting us now. > > > > Craig Carter > > > > __Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > html___ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
