Do you really want to say that reading from disk is faster than processing the text using CPU? I don't know how complex syntax of mw actually is, but C++ compilers are probably much faster than parsoid, if that's true. And these are very slow.
What takes so much CPU time in turning wikitext into html? Sounds like JS wasn't a best choice here.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Gabriel Wicke gwicke@wikimedia.org wrote:
We don't currently store the full history of each page in RESTBase, so your first access will trigger an on-demand parse of older revisions not yet in storage, which is relatively slow. Repeat accesses will load those revisions from disk (SSD), which will be a lot faster.
With a majority of clients now supporting HTTP2 / SPDY, use cases that benefit from manual batching are becoming relatively rare. For a use case like revision retrieval, HTTP2 with a decent amount of parallelism should be plenty fast.
Gabriel
On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 2:24 PM, C. Scott Ananian cananian@wikimedia.org wrote:
I think your subject line should have been "RESTBase doesn't love me"? --scott
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Gabriel Wicke Principal Engineer, Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l