Matt Wells mosaic451.com> writes:
>
>
>
> Hi all, first let me say thanks for all the great data on this list.
It's one of the most active I'm on. Thank you all.
> I have a question on a multi-tenant system I'm bringing up in dev. In
testing the isolation of queues and tickets was easy e
Hi all, first let me say thanks for all the great data on this list. It's
one of the most active I'm on. Thank you all.
I have a question on a multi-tenant system I'm bringing up in dev. In
testing the isolation of queues and tickets was easy enough; however one
item within the ticket became an
Hi all, I hope everyone is getting ready for a good weekend.
I have a questions about multi-tenant and white labeling. We have a need
for a few customers to be white labeled and I've been searching all over
for the best way to get this done. Just to be clear by white labeling I'm
mean that our c
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:05:34AM -0800, Thomas Sibley wrote:
> > On 12/12/2012 08:12 AM, CB wrote:
> > > Thanks. I understand that it's possible to have multiple queues. Is
> > > it possible to have a multi-tenant setup i.e. one RT install with
> each "tenant"
> > > having its own environment e
> Yup, works great. That's essentially what we do. You'll want a
> mod_fcgid, mod_fastcgi, or reverse proxy deployment. You can't use
> mod_perl to run multiple copies of RT because of the global Perl
> interpreter state.
Thanks for that tip -- I'd never have figured that one out.
Shuvam
-
On 12/13/2012 12:26 PM, Rainer Duffner wrote:
>> Yup, works great. That's essentially what we do. You'll want a
>> mod_fcgid, mod_fastcgi, or reverse proxy deployment. You can't
>> use mod_perl to run multiple copies of RT because of the global
>> Perl interpreter state.
>
> I think it would b
Am 13.12.2012 um 21:20 schrieb Thomas Sibley :
> On 12/13/2012 10:42 AM, Shuvam Misra wrote:
>> I too was wondering what would I do if I took a browser-based app like RT
>> and needed to run multi-tenant setups on a single physical server. One
>> option is of course virtualisation, but another co
On 12/13/2012 10:42 AM, Shuvam Misra wrote:
> I too was wondering what would I do if I took a browser-based app like RT
> and needed to run multi-tenant setups on a single physical server. One
> option is of course virtualisation, but another could be just running an
> Apache with multiple virtualh
> Personally, I'd do multi-tenant through virtualisation. Still only
> one piece of hardware, but you're keeping the data more effectively
> segregated. You could simplify and centralise your configuration through
> scripts, so you didn't have to configure each tenant by hand.
I too was wonderin
On 12/13/2012 02:33 AM, Shuvam Misra wrote:
>>> Why would you prefer a single monolithic RT instance rather than a
>>> handful of separate ones?
>>
>> Efficiencies in administration overhead and hardware requirements
>> (depending on the relative volume of transactions, of course) are two
>> that s
On 13 Dec 2012, at 10:56, Shuvam Misra wrote:
>> The overall-rights-matrix on only-one-userbase makes it
>> difficult to wall in each of the groups, so they never
>> see or notice one of the others. It *is* possible, but
>> error-prone, if the 'groups' try to administer their own
>> 'set of que
> The overall-rights-matrix on only-one-userbase makes it
> difficult to wall in each of the groups, so they never
> see or notice one of the others. It *is* possible, but
> error-prone, if the 'groups' try to administer their own
> 'set of queues'. One wrong click or 'right' and information
> le
On Thu, 13 Dec 2012, Shuvam Misra wrote:
...
> (i.e. multi-tenant support), will anyone want to set up separate servers
> then? I would have thought the reverse question is the natural one.
Having read only the last thee mails and not much time now,
I only want to tell, we did exactly tht, we did
> > Why would you prefer a single monolithic RT instance rather than a
> > handful of separate ones?
>
> Efficiencies in administration overhead and hardware requirements
> (depending on the relative volume of transactions, of course) are two
> that spring to mind immediately.
Would tend to agree
On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 09:05:34AM -0800, Thomas Sibley wrote:
> On 12/12/2012 08:12 AM, CB wrote:
> > Thanks. I understand that it's possible to have multiple queues. Is it
> > possible to have a multi-tenant setup i.e. one RT install with each "tenant"
> > having its own environment e.g. domain,
On 12/12/2012 08:12 AM, CB wrote:
> Thanks. I understand that it's possible to have multiple queues. Is it
> possible to have a multi-tenant setup i.e. one RT install with each "tenant"
> having its own environment e.g. domain, users, admin rights etc. Each tenant
> can log in to its own domain and
(for themselves
without affecting anyone else). From what I can see there is one local
config file for all of RT and it's not possible to specify multiple domains.
Cameron
From: Kenneth Crocker [mailto:kenn.croc...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 12 December 2012 4:14 p.m.
To: CB
Subject: Re: [rt
Is it possible to set up RT 4 in a multi-tenant environment? Each tenant
would have their own domain name/look/queues/scrips etc without requiring a
separate RT install.
Cameron
<>
We're hiring! http://bestpractical.com/jobs
18 matches
Mail list logo
