From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14099 invoked by alias); 31 May 2007 17:52:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 14088 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2007 17:52:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pool-71-248-179-245.bstnma.fios.verizon.net (HELO cgf.cx) (71.248.179.245) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2007 17:52:34 +0000 Received: by cgf.cx (Postfix, from userid 201) id D574313C0F8; Thu, 31 May 2007 13:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: Christopher Faylor Resent-Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 13:52:32 -0400 Resent-Message-ID: <20070531175232.GA28278@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Resent-To: overseers@gcc.gnu.org Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 17:52:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, Daniel Berlin Subject: Re: Bugzilla 3.0 and mod_perl Message-ID: <20070531174009.GA26885@trixie.casa.cgf.cx> Mail-Followup-To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , overseers@gcc.gnu.org, Daniel Berlin References: <4aca3dc20705310625s399ecf9flc16557a015b027f3@mail.gmail.com> <20070531172753.GD3094@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070531172753.GD3094@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Mailing-List: contact overseers-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: overseers-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q2/txt/msg00077.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 31, 2007 at 01:27:53PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: >HI - > >> I'm going to be upgrading our bugzilla installs to 3.0 in a few weeks > >Great. > >> One of the nicer features is that you can run multiple db's from one >> bugzilla install, so i can eliminate the need for the two copies we >> have now. > >Coincidentally, would it make sense to move the mysql server over to >server2? How much database traffic is there? > >> Bugzilla 3.0 also supports running under mod_perl. Under mod_perl, >> the cpu usage is *greatly* decreased, but the memory usage is >> heavily increased [100-200 MB] > >If that's per-httpd-process, then it's obviously too much. If it's >shared amongst the httpd's, it should be OK. Any idea what would take >up all that memory though? Is this something we can experiment with, i.e., turn it on for a while to observe and then turn it off if we notice negative consequences? cgf