Proper bots survive outages though, check wm-bot's uptime. On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote: > Because it's labs :P > > On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Maximilian Doerr > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why is labs constantly failing. My bots keep dying! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! :p >> >> Cyberpower678 >> English Wikipedia Account Creation Team >> Mailing List Moderator >> >> >> >> On May 17, 2015, at 14:10, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Note: my previous mail was not intended to Gerard, but all people who >> complains about this :) >> >> Also tool-labs may be a little exception here, high availability is >> expected there but this tool was hosted somewhere else though. >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Petr Bena <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I agree with Ryan on this, if it's production stuff it shouldn't run >> on labs unless you are OK with outages. There is number of things that >> are more or less considered production, like wm-bot or huggle's >> components, but none of them are critical and it's not a big deal to >> have occasional outage. If your service must be 24/7 it should be on >> production servers and operation team needs to be trained how to >> operate it to ensure high availability. If you fail to do that, you >> can't blame labs people, just yourself. >> >> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hoi, >> Saying a similar service is not recognising the FACT that production grade >> services are running on Labs. They are. Stating that something similar is >> worked on does NOT mean that it will indeed replace what is in FACT used in >> a production manner. Because that means that it is a development criteria to >> actually replace the functionality itself. >> >> I do solute the Labs people in that they have improved the stability of WDQ >> a lot. They did puppetise the services needed for running many of the tools, >> they made additional memory available and they collaborated with Magnus on >> making the services more robust. >> >> However, functionality in the pipeline is not what is being used and, >> theories of what production means is not really what you can observe. They >> are theories and as such not reliable. >> Thanks, >> GerardM >> >> On 17 May 2015 at 08:23, Tim Landscheidt <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> Ryan Lane <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> [WDQ] >> >> >> If it's production-ish, it should likely either be moved to production >> or >> you should put a bit of effort into making it work across multiple >> instances. The ideal goal is for services to be stateless, with their >> state >> living in databases that are also split across instances. It's best to >> have >> the service config managed (ideally puppetized since it's what wikimedia >> uses) so that a loss of an instance is only a brief inconvenience. >> >> >> There are efforts to deploy a similar service with >> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing (Phabrica- >> tor project at >> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikidata-query-service/). >> >> Tim >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Labs-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Labs-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Labs-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Labs-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l >>
_______________________________________________ Labs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
