Re: GNOME Bugzilla Upgrade: Test Upgrade On Friday?

Owen Taylor wrote:
We do actually have two much newer and nicer machines that are not at
> [snip]

	Oh yeah! Wow, those sound great! is currently hosting (virtualized) and; git currently has 20GB allocated to it, but that was
just some conversion tasks, it doesn't need nearly that much. We could
add an additional VM for something that was CPU/memory intensive but
without much IO load.

That's exactly what a Bugzilla web head is--CPU/memory intensive without much I/O. Of course, if the DB goes onto a separate server, there should ideally be a 1GB connection between the machines or better--I assume that's the case between vbox and drawable?

 Do we want to have a single big "" and host all the GNOME
 database needs on it, or do we want a VM specialized for bugzilla,
 and later add separate VM's for other database tasks.

I suspect that performance-wise, it'd be best to just have a single enormous I've yet to see high-end database performance out of a VM, and high-end performance is ideally what we'd like to see for Bugzilla (not because it does thousands of operations per second, but because Bugzilla's Search functionality is very intensive). An ideal situation is for there to be two database servers--one master and one slave (both for backup reasons and for performance reasons--Bugzilla can do read-intensive operations on the slave), but again, I think the performance penalty of having them in a VM might outweigh the advantage of having two separate machines.

That's all we'd really need to know to allocate an IP and do the initial
system image install. Then for actually doing the setup there would be
additional information needed - e.g., InnoDB vs. MyISAM.

I'll see if I can get Mozilla's MySQL configuration that they use for their current Bugzilla servers, for that last bit.

Max Kanat-Alexander
Chief Engineer
Everything Solved: Complete Computer Management

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]