AFAIK we already do that for some entries, Reedy will know more, I will let you investigate his mind for more knowledge on that.
On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Matthew Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Don't forget about the potentials of a priority based queue! (That being > said I actually have no idea what goes into our job queues; so can't say if > there's good candidates for priority based queuing.) > > ~Matt Walker > Wikimedia Foundation > Fundraising Technology Team > > > On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:30 AM, Tyler Romeo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 2013 12:10 AM, "John" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > I know Aaron has spent a lot of time on the job queue. But I have >> > several observations and would like some feedback. The current workers >> > apparently select jobs from the queue at random. A FIFO method would >> > make far more sense. We have some jobs that can sit there in the queue >> > for extended periods of time, while others added after that point may >> > get completed in mere few minutes. >> >> Well random is not the only method. There is also timestamp based and FIFO. >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
