Gehel added a comment.

I think response times and number of timeouts are not a good metric for this type of thing

To echo what @Smalyshev is saying, yes, I agree that we don't have good measures of either the reliability or the performances of WDQS. And it is somewhat related to the fact that we don't have a good definition of what those should be. We could measure the response time of a standard query and see how it evolves over time. I know that the query we use to check availability from LVS ( ASK{ ?x ?y ?z };) does timeout from time to time.

We could look at p95 or p50, but we will be measuring factors which are outside of our control as much as anything. Lag is mostly under our control (or should be) except for rare cases of massive change dump, but those are rare.

Yes and no. We could solve those issues by throwing loads of hardware at the problem. Or changing the architecture completely. Or requiring authentication on the service and having drastic usage limits. All those are probably thing we don't want to do.

What I would like, even if we don't have precise metrics, is that we agree on a statement that WDQS public endpoint is not expected to have high availability / stability guarantees.



To: Gehel
Cc: Lydia_Pintscher, EBjune, debt, Joe, Smalyshev, Gehel, Aklapper, AndyTan, Davinaclare77, Qtn1293, Lahi, Gq86, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, GoranSMilovanovic, Th3d3v1ls, Hfbn0, QZanden, merbst, LawExplorer, Zppix, Jonas, Xmlizer, Wong128hk, jkroll, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, aude, Tobias1984, Manybubbles, faidon, Mbch331, Jay8g, fgiunchedi
Wikidata-bugs mailing list

Reply via email to