You didn't address his idea one iota. Isn't this the relevant doc?
Maybe you could explain how the storage class renders his idea irrelevant?
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Domas Mituzas <midom.lists(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hello Jidanni,
Isn't this a bit redundant with your 'store-by-sha1' topic?
Currently undos, so frequent on wikis, just
blindly create a
duplicate row
instead of checking if the old one could be reused,
mediawiki-l
Seriously, if you think that wikimedia operations is bunch of cretins
where your simplistic observations are so much needed, you should try
other paths of influencing, like stage a rebellion or something :-)
If you actually paid attention to the actual mediawiki capabilities
(like, all the code in
http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/phase3/maintenance/storage/
) or any of our site docs, you'd realize that we have the code and
methods to facilitate much more efficient compression than one you are
aiming at, way higher scalability, etc
Maybe some hardware
savings could even be achieved.
You know that for a while we had virtually no hardware dedicated/
needed for text storage? We were using free disks that came with
application servers. If you ever paid attention to how Wikipedia runs,
you'd know that. Now that you don't, you end up being slightly too
paternal.
Actually, we're discontinuing the 'hundreds of storage nodes' practice
and will consolidate them back together (mostly for easier-to-manage
reasons, but that may lead to way higher availability, etc) - but that
already takes care of more than just entirely-same text, and still,
even 1/7 wouldn't matter much, as hardware for that increments in
multiple terabytes (and no, isn't insanely priced).
Cheers,
--
Domas Mituzas --
http://dammit.lt/ -- [[user:midom]]
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l