There was a recent mail saying that Labs is not considered "production" stability. Mainly a disagreement about how many 9s in the 99.99999% that represents.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Petr Bena benapetr@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
can you please explain to me from where is this information:
"According to the people in charge of labs they dont care about ensuring stability and that if stuff breaks Oh well well get to it when we can. They say that tools is not a production service so we really don't give a <>, if it breaks it breaks"
If I can speak for myself as a volunteer sysadmin of tool labs, I do care if tool labs are stable or if they break, it's just that for many of the outages I just can't do anything but sit and wait for someone with access to servers which cause troubles (which are typically outside of tool labs, like nfs storage or mysql replicas)
I can't speak for others though, but I doubt that anyone who is really "in charge" told you they don't care about stability. Or at least I hope so :-)
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM, John phoenixoverride@gmail.com wrote:
tools.wmflabs.org is supposed to be the replacement for the toolserver
which
the wmf is basically forcefully shutting down. I started the migration several months ago but got fed up with the difficulties and stopped. In
the
last month I have moved most of my tools to labs, and I have discovered
that
there are some serious issues that need addressed.
The toolserver was a fairly stable environment. I checked my primary
host I
connect to and it has been up for 4 months with continuous operations.
tools however is being treated like the red-headed step child. According
to
the people in charge of labs they dont care about ensuring stability and that if stuff breaks Oh well well get to it when we can. They say that
tools
is not a production service so we really don't give a <>, if it breaks it breaks, we will fix it when we can but since its not production its not a priority.
One good example of this is that a tool cannot connect to
tools.wmflabs.org
due to a host configuration issue. This is a known bug, we have a way of fixing it, but its still not implemented
Given that tools is replacing the toolserver I would expect at worst
labs is
just as good, however what I am seeing and hearing is that the wmf is throwing away one of their best assets, and driving away a lot of
developers
due to the management of tools.
I do want to give Coren credit as he is doing what he can to support the migration.
My question is why has the wmf decided to degrade the environment where
tool
developers design and host tools (quite a few of them are long term
stable
projects)? and what can we do to remedy this?
John
Labs-l mailing list Labs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
Labs-l mailing list Labs-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
On 11 September 2013 16:45, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
There was a recent mail saying that Labs is not considered "production" stability. Mainly a disagreement about how many 9s in the 99.99999% that represents.
<tangent> A familiar rookie error in adding meaningless commitments in operational support contracts. No matter how many (fantasy) 9's recurring after the decimal reassures you that the risk lower than an asteroid wiping out the human race tomorrow, when you ask what damages you get back if the system goes down for an actual day or an actual week, the answer tends to be zero.
I remember the 1980's when us software engineers used to talk about hot-swapping, triple-redundancy and service level guarantees. Out of vogue now I guess in the new world of Agile response teams, zero-hour contracted support etc.
Fae
Petr I apologize for forgetting to hightlight your good work, however as you have stated you dont have the access needed to fix the issues as you are just a volunteer and dont have sufficient rights on the boxes. Between you and coren I know you two care, however Ryan and others have made it a point to say if stuff breaks it is not a big deal, its not an emergency, and that they will get around to fixing it when they do. Because tools isnt a production server it has the lowest priority.
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 September 2013 16:45, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
There was a recent mail saying that Labs is not considered "production" stability. Mainly a disagreement about how many 9s in the 99.99999% that represents.
<tangent> A familiar rookie error in adding meaningless commitments in operational support contracts. No matter how many (fantasy) 9's recurring after the decimal reassures you that the risk lower than an asteroid wiping out the human race tomorrow, when you ask what damages you get back if the system goes down for an actual day or an actual week, the answer tends to be zero.
I remember the 1980's when us software engineers used to talk about hot-swapping, triple-redundancy and service level guarantees. Out of vogue now I guess in the new world of Agile response teams, zero-hour contracted support etc.
Fae
faewik@gmail.com http://j.mp/faewm
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org