Delphine Ménard wrote:
In short, it shows that the toolserver and the tools
hosted by it
*are* important to the community (and maybe the readers out there, I
can't figure out, really).
things like Magnus' geohack are used by readers without them really
knowing it's from the toolserver.
1) do we know what tools are the most used (and hence
would actually
make most sense to migrate to a stable toolserver)
<http://tools.wikimedia.de/~daniel/stats/usage_200711.html#TOPURLS>
shows a few of the most used scripts.
2) Can we, from the above list, also say which tools
are the most
useful (ie. without which some projects would just break, I am
especially thinking Commons here)
possibly someone could, but not me ;)
3) Do I undersand this right in saying that a
"stable" toolserver
would mean a way of actually integrating for real those tools into our
daily operational monitoring (ie. it *must* work, just like the
websites must be up)?
not really; the stable toolserver is still part of the toolserver
cluster. the difference is that it only runs tools which have been shown
to be stable, and aren't going to break the whole thing.
i'd also like to keep the stable server load to a reasonable level, but
i'm not sure the Verein could support several stable servers if we need
more.
4) Has anyone actually made any kind of a budget
concerning what kind
of machine we'd need, what the cost of maintenance would be, if we
want to make sure there is some sysadmin time devoted to it (ie. a
real full cost things about this).
not that i know of.
- river.