On Nov 6, 2009, at 9:59 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On 01:11 am, email@example.com wrote:
On Nov 6, 2009, at 7:54 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
As far as I can tell, these problems are due solely to the quality of trac. There is no indication that they will disappear through only an improvement of the hardware the site is hosted on (unless we consider a really amazing improvement, something on the order of 10x faster CPU and disk than what we have now, a 3GHz P4 and contemporary disks).
Not to be overly blunt, but there are other trac installations running on far less capable hardware that don't suck anywhere near as hard. That's not to say trac is great, but it isn't near this bad in many, many other places.
Do you know roughly how much traffic any of those installations deal with? We do around 50k hits per day, which is basically maxing out our hardware. I have the sense that most trac sites don't handle this much traffic.
I'm not sure. That sounds like a lot for trac but I don't really know.
Dunno, just trying to find a way to help with my very, very limited time.
Several people have spent non-trivial amounts of time looking at this. I'm not sure what improvements can be made with only limited additional input.
I know, and I'm not trying to be flip or anything like it. I hate to ask, but how much memory is in the box? If it's memory bound with that many hits, another couple of gigs could work wonders. Hell, I'll even buy them send them to the hosting company if it comes down to it.
Do you know of any relevant resources which we may have overlooked? Are there guides to running a working trac site? Tips about special indexes to create in the database? Something?
Sorry to say, my early experiences with Trac were so bad, I just quit.
Maybe the thing to do is pull together the statistics (is there a module for this), and just ask the trac devs for some help. I'd be happy to spearhead that if I could be of some help in that capacity.