Running 300-350 concurrent users with a max of 10 fast and 12 list. (Asset mgmt, change mgmt and home grown HD.)
-- Jarl On Jan 16, 2008 2:29 PM, Craig Carter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Perhaps but page 19 of the performance tuning whitepaper recommends 3 times > the number of processors for Fast and 5 times the processors for List (24 and > 40). We could also have as many as 400 users and also some web users so this > is intended to cover future growth. > > Craig Carter > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Action Request System discussion list(ARSList) [mailto:[EMAIL > PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jarl Grøneng > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:29 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Q: Server Configuration Recommendations > > 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" > > _______________________________________________________________________________ > UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org > > Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are" > _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org Platinum Sponsor: www.rmsportal.com ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"
