Lars Aronsson wrote:
The point was that when I needed the toolserver, it
didn't
provide the space I needed (in this case 160 GB), so I had
to use my own server, which uses cheap SATA disks. I was able
to complete my task, but not with the help of the toolserver.
This means others can't build on my work and people without
a server of their own will fail to complete such a project.
The idea behind the toolserver was not met by the actual
implementation in this case. It doesn't matter if it's
gold plated, if it can't be used.
Well, sure. The Toolserver is a free service with limited capabilities. I
think the issue that you're running into is that the Toolserver doesn't have
very clear governance. There are a lot of projects that the Toolserver could
get heavily involved in: database dumps, providing high-level full-text
access, pageview stats, OpenStreetMap, and so on.
There are (financial) resources available for some of these projects
(through grants, chapters, etc.), but not others. Ultimately, however, there
doesn't seem to be a clear body that controls where the Toolserver puts its
resources (besides maybe WMDE, which seems pretty hands-off). Some people
would consider this hands-off approach to be a feature; some people would
consider it a bug. Those looking to undertake very large project with
complex and costly needs obviously see it as a bug.
Wikimedia Deutschland seems to be focusing (part of?) its efforts on
WikiData: <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiData_WMDE>. Whether they have
additional resources (financial, staff, or otherwise) to devote to other
projects is unclear to me. If you can make database dumps a priority for
them (or other rich chapters), you can build a platform to do exactly what
you want to do. It's not easy work, though.
MZMcBride