[rt-users] httpd speed on rt3

[Mike Husband]

I have a few timings which might throw some more light on this.

I'm running RT 3.0.7 over postgresql 7.4 on Solaris.

A ticket with 2 small comments takes about 5 seconds to retrieve,
but a ticket with 10 small comments (200 to 500 bytes) and 4 attachments
(50K each)
takes about 18 seconds to retrieve.

My profile of executions shows that there are 106 SELECT statements, most
of which take less than 5 ms.  There are 8 permissions checks which take
about 20 to 30 ms each.  This gives a total sql time of less than 1 second.

The break down of wall-clock execution time is roughly as follows:

Check permissions; get ticket, custom fields, transaction list - about 3
seconds
Get comments/attachments - 14 seconds.

So it seems fairly clearly that the killer here is the time to process
attachments.

Is it possible to display only the last comment by default, and display all
only
if the user asks for history?  Would this be an acceptable compromise?

Mike

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rt-users-bounces at lists.bestpractical.com
> [mailto:rt-users-bounces at lists.bestpractical.com]On Behalf Of Jesse
> Vincent
> Sent: Thursday, 22 January 2004 3:26 AM
> To: Douglas E. Warner
> Cc: rt-users at lists.fsck.com
> Subject: Re: [rt-users] httpd speed on rt3
>
>
>
> >
> > After fresh restart:
> > displaying ticket: 10s
> > replaying queries: 1.5s
> >
> > Then (not restarted):
> > displaying ticket: 9s
> > replaying queries: 0.06s
>
> >
> > I'm not seeing the same queries over and over again like
> Palle was; there 227
> > queries for the page load, but there's 88 transactions
> (that includes
> > comments, correspondance, and actions).
>
> Ok. I think there's the thing that's taking the time. how long are the
> comments and correspondence? Are there attachments to the ticket?  I'm
> betting that you don't see such performance issues on shorter
> tickets.
>
> This is a known issue with long tickets with a lot of attachment
> content, especially "binary" attachments that aren't
> displayed inline. A
> customer asked us to quote a fix for them. We've sent them
> the quote and
> are just waiting for them to decide whether or not to go for it. (It
> involves a bunch of changes to RT's core.)  Ruslan sent a draft of a
> possible fix to rt-devel as well, which may work for you.
>
> 	Jesse
>
> >
> > - -Doug
> >
> > - --
> > Douglas E. Warner    <dwarner at ctinetworks.com>     Network Engineer
> > CTI/PAdotNET         http://ctinetworks.com        +1 717 975 9000
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
> >
> > iD8DBQFADrCVJV36su0A0xIRAsZjAJ9T4bcmFklLUi/tWCW+MuE5Ja5UWACg3jEw
> > P4Ti1N5piu5t7htri1lrRNk=
> > =3w72
> > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rt-users mailing list
> > rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
> > http://lists.bestpractical.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users
> >
> > Have you read the FAQ? The RT FAQ Manager lives at
http://fsck.com/rtfm
>

--
http://www.bestpractical.com/rt  -- Trouble Ticketing. Free.
_______________________________________________
rt-users mailing list
rt-users at lists.bestpractical.com
http://lists.bestpractical.com/mailman/listinfo/rt-users

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