-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
We had some sort of network outage starting a bit after midnight UTC; heavy packet loss (33%-39% range) was visible on a number of networks, and the Tampa servers became difficult to reach for a time.
Additionally, there was some DST packet overload on our primary load balancer, making the wikis inaccessible through it.
Packet loss was largely reduced by about 01:05 UTC; some poking at the load balancer apparently reset things to where it was happy with the network again by around 01:18 UTC.
Sites are accessible and seem reasonably happy at this time.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:29:47PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
Sites are accessible and seem reasonably happy at this time.
Don't anthropomorphize computers... they *hate* that.
:-)
And thanks to whomever did those rack-diagram tables on wikitech -- I just stole them for my new job.
Leuksman's SSL cert pukes on my Firefox, BTW; is it self-signed?
Cheers, -- jra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:29:47PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
Sites are accessible and seem reasonably happy at this time.
Don't anthropomorphize computers... they *hate* that.
:-)
And thanks to whomever did those rack-diagram tables on wikitech -- I just stole them for my new job.
Leuksman's SSL cert pukes on my Firefox, BTW; is it self-signed?
It's self-signed and probably installed wrong. ;)
Note that Firefox 3 is *very* pissy about certs it doesn't like, but you can poke in an exception if you follow the directions. :)
- -- brion
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:39PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
And thanks to whomever did those rack-diagram tables on wikitech -- I just stole them for my new job.
Leuksman's SSL cert pukes on my Firefox, BTW; is it self-signed?
It's self-signed and probably installed wrong. ;)
I *think* the machine I was on might have had 1.0.7 (one of the two did), but it accepted my override just fine.
Note that Firefox 3 is *very* pissy about certs it doesn't like, but you can poke in an exception if you follow the directions. :)
I was *just* about to install b4 on my SuSE box; we'll see how that goes.
1.11 installed like a champ, BTW: I have two notes on the installer script; who should they go to? BZ? A person?
Cheers, -- jra
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:39PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
And thanks to whomever did those rack-diagram tables on wikitech -- I just stole them for my new job.
Leuksman's SSL cert pukes on my Firefox, BTW; is it self-signed?
It's self-signed and probably installed wrong. ;)
I *think* the machine I was on might have had 1.0.7 (one of the two did), but it accepted my override just fine.
Note that Firefox 3 is *very* pissy about certs it doesn't like, but you can poke in an exception if you follow the directions. :)
I was *just* about to install b4 on my SuSE box; we'll see how that goes.
1.11 installed like a champ, BTW: I have two notes on the installer script; who should they go to? BZ? A person?
Bugzilla would be ideal; people work better when they've got a tracker to refer to. :D
- -- brion
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:48:54PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
1.11 installed like a champ, BTW: I have two notes on the installer script; who should they go to? BZ? A person?
Bugzilla would be ideal; people work better when they've got a tracker to refer to. :D
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13409 https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13410
Cheers, -- jra
On 18/03/2008, Jay R. Ashworth jra@baylink.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 06:35:39PM -0700, Brion Vibber wrote:
Note that Firefox 3 is *very* pissy about certs it doesn't like, but you can poke in an exception if you follow the directions. :)
I was *just* about to install b4 on my SuSE box; we'll see how that goes.
I'm running Minefield (FF3 nightlies) on Windows and Linux at present; I heartily recommend it to all. Faster, smaller, better in every way. It really does get very pissy about non-Verisigned certs, though.
- d.
Thanks to all the dev's, especially brion, for your fast responses. Teamwork is the key :-)
-j.
E Administrator - English Wikipedia Online Team Member - Wikimania 2008 Email: e.wikipedia@gmail.com
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today. Visit http://donate.wikimedia.org/
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Brion Vibber" brion@wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:29 AM To: "Wikimedia developers" wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Wikitech-l] Outage info
We had some sort of network outage starting a bit after midnight UTC; heavy packet loss (33%-39% range) was visible on a number of networks, and the Tampa servers became difficult to reach for a time.
Additionally, there was some DST packet overload on our primary load balancer, making the wikis inaccessible through it.
Packet loss was largely reduced by about 01:05 UTC; some poking at the load balancer apparently reset things to where it was happy with the network again by around 01:18 UTC.
Sites are accessible and seem reasonably happy at this time.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ wikimedia.org)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 18/03/2008, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
We had some sort of network outage starting a bit after midnight UTC; heavy packet loss (33%-39% range) was visible on a number of networks, and the Tampa servers became difficult to reach for a time. Additionally, there was some DST packet overload on our primary load balancer, making the wikis inaccessible through it. Packet loss was largely reduced by about 01:05 UTC; some poking at the load balancer apparently reset things to where it was happy with the network again by around 01:18 UTC.
Someone suggests we pissed off the operators of the Storm botnet:
http://nailo19.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/wikipedia-hacked/
[[:en:Storm botnet]] was the Featured Article on Saturday ...
- d.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Someone suggests we pissed off the operators of the Storm botnet:
http://nailo19.wordpress.com/2008/03/17/wikipedia-hacked/
[[:en:Storm botnet]] was the Featured Article on Saturday ...
It affected a lot more than Wikipedia (although, any effective DDoS against Wikipedia would do that). But really, Wikipedia gets 50,000 req/s peak. The Wikipedia article gives estimates of the Storm botnet size that range from 160,000 to 50 million. Even 10,000 computers sending a continuous stream of requests could manage hundreds of times normal request load. If Storm wanted Wikipedia down, they could have done a damn sight better than they did. And what would they hope to accomplish? I imagine it's just a coincidence.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org