Hello RT Users and Developers, Our RT instance at the University of Oregon is outgrowing the standard settings in some ways. One way is with attachments. The size of our database is 15.3GB and 13.7GB of that comes from the Attachments table. If our attachments were stored on a high-performance fileserver (or locally if you prefer), our database would shrink to 1.6GB. This would have numerous positive ramifications:
- Database dumps/backups would finish in 1/10 the time - Database restores would finish in 1/10 the time - Planned downtimes and disaster recovery situations could be more nimbly performed (scp'ing around the db dump, restoring, etc) - Backups could be taken much more frequently - More backups could be stored - MySQL replication would be more robust with less binary data to chew on - Larger attachments could be permitted because there would be less fear of the database growing too quickly - Reduced database load querying/inserting/deleting/joining attachments I've read in previous posts to this mailing list (see below) that the arguments against this are that (1) attachments on the filesystem can't be searched and (2) the data backing the application will not be in one tidy database package but instead spread out across the db and filesystem. For our instance we don't care about #1, and for #2, while I understand the argument, I would actually argue the opposite: when attachments are on a high-performance, redundant SAN managed by a dedicated storage team that I don't have to worry about, my job administering RT just got a whole lot easier because I only have to worry about ensuring the fileserver is mounted and $AttachmentsPath (just an example config option) is properly set. I worked previously at a company that ran one of the largest instances of Bugzilla in the world and we served up 30TB of attachments over a fileserver without any problems. Can you imagine those attachments in a MySQL database? When ticket tracking syste ms are no longer small-ish, moving attachments out of the database becomes a must. I'm not asking the RT folks to switch attachment storage to the filesystem instead of the database. My wish is that RT offers its administrators the ability to choose one or the other. I know this has been a hot topic in the past, but I was hoping we could revisit the issue. Best Practical folks -- are you open to this? If so, would it help the process if I did all the work and submitted a patch? If so, should I file a bug so that we can talk about the way you would like this implemented? Given my reading of the history of this issue, I think a lot of folks would benefit from this feature. I've included previous postings about this issue below. Let me know if I can help and how I can. We would love to upstream a patch so our local instance doesn't diverge too severely from you all. Thanks for your consideration, Geoff Mayes One of the first, meaty discussions: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/devel/706 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/devel/37733 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/users/39507 The best discussion of the issue: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/users/67406 Best Practical has recently worked on this issue: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/rt/users/89596 -------- RT Training Sessions (http://bestpractical.com/services/training.html) * Boston March 5 & 6, 2012
