On 14 April 2012 19:21, Scott Gifford <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Yves S. Garret
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
[ ... ]
one
of the requirements that we have is that thousands of people
should be
able to use this (there is a large number of people in the company).
What I would like to know is how well would Trac handle so much
traffic?
I haven't done this personally, but since nobody else has weighed
in, maybe this will be helpful. Performance will probably depend a
lot on server hardware, etc. Various bits of documentation indicate
that it will scale much better using Postgres. Here are a few links
that might be useful:
If you do some measurements, I'm sure the list would be very
interested to see them.
Postgres definitely helps. At $work we switched from sqlite to postgres
recently, and upgraded the hardware, because we were hitting the db
locked issue too often and it was starting to take 10-20s to load a page.
I wouldn't set up a trac instance with 1000s of users without postgres
and enough memory to run lots of apache children.
Our current setup is:
* around 50 active users
* 200,000 svn revisions
* 38,000+ tickets
* bitten plugin
running on a dual-core 2Ghz Xeon, 12 Gb memory, 1Tb drive
(The same box is also running a couple of other services).
Trac db is at 1Gb, with 27Gb of attachments.
I'm curious as to what other people's stats are.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Trac
Users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/trac-users?hl=en.
