Maybe I just haven't noticed the appropriate messages sent to this list, but it seems to me that progress reports have been spotty. Is there discussion going on somewhere else?
I'm very bummed. I try to pepper my postings at K5 with links to the 'pedia, but today I couldn't even get to the main page. I had to link to archives.org instead [1]. I would have preferred to put that high-quality off-site link [2] in the 'pedia Titanic article and linked to it instead of [2]. :-( (Breaking News: While composing this, I was finally able to get to wikipedia.com and make the edit.)
I'm deeply saddened that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, but I also want to praise Jimbo, Magnus, Lee, and all the others who've supported the project technically. I'd offer to help right now, but I have other commitments for the next couple of weeks... I'd just like a way to stay abreast of developments.
<>< Tim
[1] see the Titanic link at http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/7/9/04416/40645/222#222 [2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/american_originals/titanic.html
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com
Thanks for the praise - I guess... :)
To answer the question (the subject line), we'll switch to new hardware and software soon, and I am pretty sure the performance problems will decrease or go away completely.
Try it out at http://beta.wikipedia.com (both new hard- and software).
Magnus
-----Original Message----- From: wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com [mailto:wikipedia-l-admin@nupedia.com]On Behalf Of Tim Chambers Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:28 PM To: wikipedia-l@nupedia.com Subject: [Wikipedia-l] what's being done about performance?
Maybe I just haven't noticed the appropriate messages sent to this list, but it seems to me that progress reports have been spotty. Is there discussion going on somewhere else?
I'm very bummed. I try to pepper my postings at K5 with links to the 'pedia, but today I couldn't even get to the main page. I had to link to archives.org instead [1]. I would have preferred to put that high-quality off-site link [2] in the 'pedia Titanic article and linked to it instead of [2]. :-( (Breaking News: While composing this, I was finally able to get to wikipedia.com and make the edit.)
I'm deeply saddened that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success, but I also want to praise Jimbo, Magnus, Lee, and all the others who've supported the project technically. I'd offer to help right now, but I have other commitments for the next couple of weeks... I'd just like a way to stay abreast of developments.
<>< Tim
[1] see the Titanic link at http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/2002/7/9/04416/40645/222#222 [2] http://www.archives.gov/exhibit_hall/american_originals/titanic.html
Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com [Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Tim Chambers wrote:
I'm deeply saddened that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success,
No, it is victim to poor architecture. It's a software problem in the Wikipedia PHP source code.
The developers seem totally clueless about performance issues. There is a constant focus on new functions, and none on performance and response times. They cannot even say what the average response time has been in the last week or 24 hours. (Hey, prove me wrong: Tell me the average.)
I agree, but still, with new software almost ready to go, serious digging into what's wrong with the old softwear seems senseless. (Although one might stumble on something).
Fred Bauder
At 03:14 PM 7/12/02 +0200, you wrote:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Tim Chambers wrote:
I'm deeply saddened that Wikipedia is a victim of its own success,
No, it is victim to poor architecture. It's a software problem in the Wikipedia PHP source code.
The developers seem totally clueless about performance issues. There is a constant focus on new functions, and none on performance and response times. They cannot even say what the average response time has been in the last week or 24 hours. (Hey, prove me wrong: Tell me the average.)
-- Lars Aronsson (lars@aronsson.se) tel +46-70-7891609 http://aronsson.se/ http://elektrosmog.nu/ http://susning.nu/
[Wikipedia-l] To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
Lars Aronsson wrote:
The developers seem totally clueless about performance issues. There is a constant focus on new functions, and none on performance and response times. They cannot even say what the average response time has been in the last week or 24 hours. (Hey, prove me wrong: Tell me the average.)
I don't think this is accurate. The blame for the performance problem rests squarely on my shoulders, not on the shoulders of the developers.
On the current machine, Jason and I have login accounts on the machine, but none of the developers do. This makes it virtually impossible for them to do serious study of performance issues. They have a lot of clues, and a lot of suggestions, but no means to implement them -- I have been a bottleneck to the process.
This is all about to change, this upcoming Saturday. The new machine is wikipedia-only, and developers already have access to the machine. Root access is available for a small handful, even.
This means that the developers can sit on the "live machine" and study and tweak for performance, without having to guess what is wrong, and with instant feedback possible, without waiting for me to get around to fixing things.
It would be unfair for me to let the developers take the blame for a problem caused by a single-point-of-failure that is me! :-)
--Jimbo
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org