[rt-users] Large Attachments Table

ktm at rice.edu ktm at rice.edu
Wed Oct 10 15:24:14 EDT 2012

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:36:22PM +0330, shayne.alone at gmail.com wrote:
> Dears;
> I have been face with a problem... after 3 years, out attachments table has
> been grown over 300GB in size and it's about 15 Million of records.
> for performance tuning I Ihad changes it's Table Engine into InnoDB and
> configured MySQL as file_peer_table with Dynamic Row format to bring out
> the BLOB data out of the caching space and reduction  it's response time.
> but I have always a question in my mine! why RT is storing this much
> attached objects in BLOG fields?
> why it dose not use a separate file system to store file on and just table
> it links ( or auto generated name ) on DB?
> in such a way, we will have some better ways to backup this much files...
> -- features like  snapshots on ZFS
> -- 
> Regards,
> Ali R. Taleghani

Hi Ali,

You can check the archives. There actually was a branch developed by
Best Practical that moved the attachments into the filesystem. I believe
the customer was motivated by performance needs. Certainly, keeping all
of the information is a single DB is vastly easier to manage consistently.
Once you get to the size of the DB that you are reaching, care and handling
is a much different beast whether or not the data is in the DB or on a tied
filesystem. You are certainly an inspiration using MySQL as the backend for
an instance that large.


More information about the rt-users mailing list