On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > What we need is a database with a robust and fool proof synchronisation > process. Latency is important when all the databases have to be > synchronised all the time. When articles only need to be the latest when > they are readied for editing it is less of an issue. > > When the data is shared over many computers in for instance a peer to peer > network, the real cost can be high but when the cost is shared by > volunteers and organisations volunteering it is no longer much of an issue > for the central organisation. > > Databases of such a design are not that rare. There has been research on > this for Wikipedia usage in Amsterdam where it is considered feasible. > Thanks, > Gerard > > > On 23 January 2012 18:48, Leslie Carr <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM, cyrano <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Hello, this topic is from foundation-l, I think it is more suited on >> > wikitech-l. >> > >> > -------- Message original -------- >> > >> > What about sharing the whole databases among the millions of users, in >> > some p2p net with a lot of redundancies?, something like a dense, cloudy >> > internet of databases who remains whole even if it looses part of >> > itself? Does it sound unwordly? >> > It could be a good complement to the server based versions. >> >> this sounds nice but just wouldn't work at all. we need to have >> reliable databases with a consistant latency. >> >> > >> > Le 22/01/2012 20:50, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen a écrit : >> >> The simple option that will just blow all this talk fo lobbying away, >> >> is to migrate outside US jurisdiction entirely. It does entail some >> >> costs, and may well not be optimal, on many fronts. >> >> s/some/lots of/ >> >> >> >> >> A medium option is to do a plan on the lines of the actions that >> >> Google has already put into force, of diversifying datacenters that >> >> have our non-fungible assets, so that for enforcement they would >> >> have to invade sovreign territory. But for a non-profit, our best line >> >> would be to say that we are making those plans, but actually want >> >> to keep the US have the PR benefit of being able to say that WMF >> >> like entities find the US best to be incorporated in. And then grin >> >> very hard, so they know we mean business. Follow up with saying >> >> the very real contingency plans can not wait on their realizing they >> >> have the wrong end of the stick, so we have to act now. >> >> >> >> So we will put a few fallback datacenters elsewhere, just so our >> >> various communities and chapters realize we aren't going to be >> >> bullied by US jurisdiction. But we have a much more expansive >> >> plan which we tell we will eventually realize. But the legislators >> >> in the US have to understand we are doing this all so they realize >> >> what they are working on is harmful to prosperity around the globe. >> >> >> >> again, expensive! >> >> >> And if they play ball, (we won't give a cent of tribute, sorry) we will >> >> not accelerate the rate at which we realize the full international >> >> nature of the Wikimedia Foundation. >> >> >> >> That is pretty much the line of "education" that might be effective, >> >> without costing the Foundation a single backhander.
Byzantine fault tolerance and proving provenance of the data are major issues with distributed peer-to-peer systems; we have bad enough problems with vandals now, without cloudsourcing our database storage mechanisms... Today, this is a computer science solution, not an operations solution. The Foundation doesn't exist to be a testbed for making computer science technology operationally mature. -- -george william herbert [email protected] _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
