Recommendations for Bugzilla hardware
kevin.benton at amd.com
Tue Oct 18 22:02:59 UTC 2005
Eddie - try putting it on a desktop-sized machine and see if that's fast
enough for you. Bugzilla, Apache, and MySQL don't require exotic
hardware for small installations. As your needs increase, you can
migrate to larger systems if you want or move MySQL to a separate box.
It's very easy to get "analysis paralysis." Sometimes, it's easier to
"just try it." This is one of those cases, unless you expect to see
50,000 bugs in the next year. Once you've got your first system up /
running, you can evaluate how things are working and what performance
needs you may have. Also, without knowing what kind of data you will be
storing in the database, it's difficult to say how much space you should
Installing Bugzilla for the first time can take anywhere from a few
minutes to a few hours depending on how your system is set up before you
load it and your level of expertise in dealing with the operating
system, Perl, and MySQL.
Perl/Bugzilla Developer/Administrator, Perforce SCM Administrator
Personal Computing Systems Group
Advanced Micro Devices
The opinions stated in this communication do not necessarily reflect the
view of Advanced Micro Devices and have not been reviewed by management.
This communication may contain sensitive and/or confidential and/or
proprietary information. Distribution of such information is strictly
prohibited without prior consent of Advanced Micro Devices. This
communication is for the intended recipient(s) only. If you have
received this communication in error, please notify the sender, then
destroy any remaining copies of this communication.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: developers-owner at bugzilla.org
[mailto:developers-owner at bugzilla.org]
> On Behalf Of Eddie Xie
> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 3:07 PM
> To: developers at bugzilla.org
> Subject: Re: Recommendations for Bugzilla hardware
> On 2005 August 09 (Tue) 01:49:23am PDT, David Miller
> <justdave at bugzilla.org> wrote:
> > Eddie Xie wrote:
> >> I see that you have your Bugzilla using dual processor systems.
> >> much of a benefit is it to have two processors? Do you have to do
> >> anything special to get this benefit (e.g., use a specially
> >> version of MySQL, or use a specialized version of Linux or
> > You need a kernel that was compiled for "SMP" or "Symmetric
> > Multi-Processing". Most linux distros these days have such a kernel
> > already compiled for you in one of the kernel packages (I know Red
> > Debian, Fedora, and Ubuntu all do, I haven't used many others).
> > It's a great benefit to a machine with Apache and MySQL on the same
> > because then essentially, MySQL gets one and Apache gets the other
> > exactly, but that's the general idea). In the case of having just
> > webserver on that box, Apache can basically handle twice as many
> > requests at once because it has both processors to split the load
> I see. It just "happens" if the kernel supports it.
> With a lot of hits, I can easily see how this would be an great
> advantage. I think with my situation, though, we have less people
> trying to access our Bugzilla, but they are running complicated
> queries. So, we wouldn't get as much benefit out of the dual
> processor as a site that has a more even load between Apache and
> Is there anything wrong with this line of reasoning? Or does Apache
> suck up more resources than that?
> In general, would it be more cost effective to have dual processors,
> or just a faster single processor? Should I worry more about
> processor speed, memory, or the hard disk?
> >> What is the benefit of using a replicated database for queries? Is
> >> only when multiple queries are going on at the same time?
> > When you send an update to a table, the table gets locked for a
> > moment, preventing queries from accessing that table (MySQL doesn't
> > row-level locks unfortunately -- not in the current versions we
> > anyway). So every time someone updates a bug, anyone running a
> > going to be put on hold momentarily. If lots of people are changing
> > bugs at once, this leaves very little time for queries to run. The
> > replicated database is set up with "low-priority writes," meaning
> > queries get priority, and updates are done whenever there aren't any
> > queries running. If there's a LOT of people running queries, it's
> > possible for the replicated database to get a little bit stale, but
> > keeps everyone running quickly, and it usually doesn't stay behind
> > very long.
> If we have this replicated database on the same machine, and it's a
> dual processor machine, do the main and replicated databases get
> separate processors?
> It's been a while since my last message about this to the list, but
> it's taken a bit of agitating to get upgrading the Bugzilla machine
> bumped up in priority.
> Eddie Xie
> To view or change your list settings, click here:
More information about the developers