Wiadomość napisana przez Randall Farmer randall@wawd.com w dniu 21 sie 2013, o godz. 18:02:
Sadly they're moderating comments. I tweeted at the author, with links to WMF Ganglia as backup, and he definitely doesn't believe me; maybe something from a WMFer would help, if anyone thinks it's worth correcting: https://twitter.com/hassankhosseini/status/370090365354655744
Going by the Ganglia pages, actual Wikipedia has at lesat >2x the *RAM* that their scenario has *disk*. Pretty fun. (If you're curious, Ganglia's front page says it's tracking 14,744 cores on 988 hosts and 40T of RAM. Their scenario has <20T disk. There may be additional capacity not in that Ganglia setup, though it seemed to cover the obvious stuff.)
On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 8:23 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 21 August 2013 16:12, hoo hoo@online.de wrote:
Am I wrong or did they actually calculate that for labs only (which would be rather funny)? At least they link to
https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Ask/-5B-5BResource-20Type::insta......] that run on up to 385 instances [...]") which AFAIK doesn't have any production servers.
Heh. Please do post a comment of correction and post it here too, so it doesn't just vanish ;-)
- d.
Now there is an update [0] that says: "We learned today that the data set we used for this post might not be correct.". No it's not like they've taken the wrong data - the data they've taken is not correct! Shame on you data!
Michał
[0] http://www.rightscale.com/blog/cloud-cost-analysis/cloud-cost-analysis-how-m...