Once again today, someone is complaining about page load time on the pump. I am beginning to suspect that this is a bandwidth problem. What has been done to investigate the reason behind this problem, and what were the results of said tests? I haven't really heard a straight answer from anyone saying what the problem is, just speculation.
-- Michael Becker a.k.a. Mbecker a.k.a. MB
webmaster wrote:
Once again today, someone is complaining about page load time on the pump. I am beginning to suspect that this is a bandwidth problem. What has been done to investigate the reason behind this problem, and what were the results of said tests? I haven't really heard a straight answer from anyone saying what the problem is, just speculation.
Perhap it's related to the news that Wikipedia is ca 1,400th in traffic on the net? I got mail out of the blue this weekend from a prospective contributor who'd just noticed WP, and this morning my wife was asking me to spell it so she could pass the url along to someone she was talking to on the phone. Maybe this is the marketing tornado that Geoffrey Moore talks about (quick, to the store for more servers! :-) )
Stan
Michael-
Once again today, someone is complaining about page load time on the pump. I am beginning to suspect that this is a bandwidth problem. What has been done to investigate the reason behind this problem, and what were the results of said tests? I haven't really heard a straight answer from anyone saying what the problem is, just speculation.
There are a few improvements that are currently being tested which should help speed things up. Getting all the wikis on the latest software will also help, as this includes Brion's caching code. But remember that right now all the languages, sister projects etc. run on *one* database server (the web server load is shared, not the db load). We're still working with very cheap equipment here -- basically not much more than what is under your desk -- and runing a very high traffic website with that. The English Wikipedia alone serves up to 250 gigabytes per month (the German wiki adds up to 40 gigs per month, and so on).
If you told a regular business type that we accomplished all this with free software and a couple of PCs running Linux, they would probably not believe you. As great as this is, we'll have to start sharing the DB load sooner or later.
Regards,
Erik
On 07/07/03 at 03:18 PM, "webmaster" webmaster@jumpingjackweb.com said:
Once again today, someone is complaining about page load time on the pump. I am beginning to suspect that this is a bandwidth problem.
Just now, page loading times are GLACIAL, especially Recent Changes. It is a shame, because it makes the system virtually unuseable.
I'll have another go in the morning when the system is usually more responsive.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, webmaster wrote:
Once again today, someone is complaining about page load time on the pump. I am beginning to suspect that this is a bandwidth problem.
It is sooooooooo not bandwidth.
Typical usage is 50-80 k/s each on larousse and pliny. (Usage is a touch lower on larousse, which serves the English wikipedia, because it's set up to compress cachable pages that are sent to non-logged-in users for about 25% total savings; and also pliny carries the big database backup downloads.)
I've gotten ca 1000 k/sec downloads of backup dumps from uni here, even when the wiki was hella slow.
If you'll look at: http://www.wikipedia.org/stats/usage_200307.html you'll see that peak usage does not exceed average by that much.
What has been done to investigate the reason behind this problem, and what were the results of said tests? I haven't really heard a straight answer from anyone saying what the problem is, just speculation.
When I stare at mysql's process list to see the slowpokes, who comes up on top?
Search, search, search.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
[crossposted to wikipedia-l]
Brion Vibber wrote:
When I stare at mysql's process list to see the slowpokes, who comes up on top?
Search, search, search.
Some say we need to buy another server, others say the developers need to speed up the code. I think we need to to both.
We're growing very fast, but we could have grown even faster if we wouldn't have speed problems since far over a year now. It's not only that our editors could write more articles in fewer time, many articles don't get writen because people leave the project out of frustration or presumably more often don't even start editing. Many edits got lost because the server didn't respond or people didn't wait long enough.
So the Wikimedia Foundation needs money to buy new servers. Besides waiting for donations I suggest that we take part in as many bookshop affiliate programs as possible. It doesn't have the downsides of banners, because it's totaly unobtrusive and neutral. Many Wikipedians would visit their favourite online bookstore through our site if they knew the foundation will profit from it. I can't predict how much money we will make in the end, but it's worth trying.
Kurt
To quote Walter...
Could editors on the various international wikipedia and english wikipedia (that is the correct denomination I guess) think of *offering* to the proper wikipedia, any relevant article that landed by mistake in a wrong language on their wikipedia ?
such as http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant
written in italian on the en wikipedia
whose content was first blanked, then proposed for deletion, and finally googled translated.
Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by this article ? But were they told ? I saw no sign of it anyway.
I put the link in the talk page of the equivalent article.
but...
In the spirit of international cooperation, could not this kind of offering be natural and automatic ?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Anthere wrote:
Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by this article ? But were they told ? I saw no sign of it anyway.
This is a good idea, but how to tell them?
Drop the text into the appropriate page on that wiki, with a comment "someone put this on the English wiki, please fix it up"... Is not so hard. :D
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote in news:20030714202149.67013.qmail@web41704.mail.yahoo.com:
To quote Walter...
Could editors on the various international wikipedia and english wikipedia (that is the correct denomination I guess)
That is not I find but if you use something different people will not understand what you mean. I can live whit it.
think of *offering* to the proper wikipedia, any relevant article that landed by mistake in a wrong language on their wikipedia ? such as http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant
written in italian on the en wikipedia
whose content was first blanked, then proposed for deletion, and finally googled translated.
I find it normal that a article in the wrong language is deleted. But what a Wikipedia does whit that type of "articles" is their business. No need to involve the source-wikipedia.
Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by this article ?
Why should the? Why should the Italian Wikipedia care for a article on the Engelish Wikipedia that is a google-translated article from the Italian Wikipedia?
--- Walter Vermeir walter@wikipedia.be wrote:
Anthere anthere6@yahoo.com wrote in
news:20030714202149.67013.qmail@web41704.mail.yahoo.com:
To quote Walter...
Could editors on the various international
wikipedia
and english wikipedia (that is the correct denomination I guess)
That is not I find but if you use something different people will not understand what you mean. I can live whit it.
I agree with you Walter of course :-)
think of *offering* to the proper wikipedia, any relevant article that landed
by
mistake in a wrong language on their wikipedia ? such as
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant
written in italian on the en wikipedia
whose content was first blanked, then proposed for deletion, and finally googled translated.
I find it normal that a article in the wrong language is deleted. But what a Wikipedia does whit that type of "articles" is their business. No need to involve the source-wikipedia.
no, you did not understand, but I see the explanation was given
Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested
by
this article ?
Why should the?
I know the field concerned. I was trained in that field, and I worked in that field. Hence, I can say the article is worth (the translation is awful :-))
Now, the good news : the article *landed well* on the italian wiki. It is now separated in three articles.
I hope they will be phase III soon.
cheers
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
Anthere wrote:
think of *offering* to the proper wikipedia, any relevant article that landed
by
mistake in a wrong language on their wikipedia ? such as
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenic_plant
written in italian on the en wikipedia
whose content was first blanked, then proposed for deletion, and finally googled translated.
I've just seen this thread; I've put a reply to this on the talk page, but to spare people from switching windows; I tried looking around the Italian wikipedia, then gave up because I don't speak Italian. I was going to go back to it, but work intruded, and I figured everything was alright once I saw the Italian link on the page.
I know the field concerned. I was trained in that field, and I worked in that field. Hence, I can say the article is worth (the translation is awful :-))
Now, the good news : the article *landed well* on the italian wiki. It is now separated in three articles.
I hope they will be phase III soon.
There have been some attempts to clean up the translation, and the article looks to have promise as an English language article when done. I intended to do some more basic cleaning up of the text, but work intruded; I should be able to get back to it later today. I'll drop you a note when I've done what I can, maybe you can give it the finishing touches?
Take care, Jimmy
Jimmy O'Regan wrote: Something from a few months ago. Sorry about that, I don't know where that came from.
Walter Vermeir wrote in part:
Anthere wrote:
Could editors on the various international wikipedia and english wikipedia (that is the correct denomination I guess)
That is not I find but if you use something different people will not understand what you mean. I can live whit it.
I never say "international Wikipedia". I might say "Wikipedia is an international project.", but then this /includes/ the English version!
Perhaps the italian wikipedia might be interested by this article ?
Why should they? Why should the Italian Wikipedia care for a article on the English Wikipedia that is a google-translated article from the Italian Wikipedia?
There is a misunderstanding here.
The article began on [[en:]], and it began in Italian. It was only Google-translated later on, for [[en:]]'s use. But [[it:]] might well want the /original/ article, which they didn't have before.
So it's helpful to [[it:]] if the people on [[en:]], before deleting (or translating) the article, send it over to [[it:]], as a matter of courtesy.
-- Toby