Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 01/17/06 18:38 CST: > I think he means that we should benchmark both trac and bugzilla on the > same hardware and under the same load to make a judgement about > performance. IS that right, Randy?
Well, I simply *loathe* using Bugzilla on Belgarath right now. Shit, sometimes I have to wait 15-30 seconds after hitting commit, or changing screens before the result is displayed. Ridiculously slow. However, I can't see us doing parallel testing. That is too "corporate". :-) My suggestion would be to implement Trac as a replacement for Bugzilla. Only Bugzilla mind you, at the beginning. How could it possibly be any worse than what we have now? (I have not yet looked at the *functionality* provided by the Trac bug-tracking system, but I don't think even Jeremy would suggest its use if it was that much inferior) :-) Then, after Trac proves itself a success as a Bugzilla replacement, another component of our on-line presence can be migrated over, if it is deemed that we should go that route. Anyway, just my thoughts on it. I can't see doing "benchmarking" on it, especially for a Bugzilla replacement. To me, "benchmarking" it would be too much like "work". :-) -- Randy rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 2.15.94.0.2 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3] [GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686] 18:43:00 up 115 days, 4:07, 3 users, load average: 0.13, 0.19, 0.36 -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
