We had some slowness today, where after some temporary issue cluster ended up spending >50% of it's time working on Spanish wikipedia template. We nuked the template (es.wikipedia site was also turned off at some moment), so now it is all up and running.
The template was used for adding a single line of text, though it took 20 seconds to render. ;-)
We'll probably have to do something about that.
Cheers for now, Domas
Domas Mituzas wrote:
We had some slowness today, where after some temporary issue cluster ended up spending >50% of it's time working on Spanish wikipedia template. We nuked the template (es.wikipedia site was also turned off at some moment), so now it is all up and running.
The template was used for adding a single line of text, though it took 20 seconds to render. ;-)
We'll probably have to do something about that.
Cheers for now, Domas
Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional (only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish investigating?
Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional (only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish investigating?
It's 5 days since this reminding, a week since the slowness. We're missing the funcionality it provided. So, is there any reason blocking from restoring it? (if so, why hasn't been resolved yet? :D)
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision. As any edit to the template will affect a lot of pages, i'm also reluctant of doing 'lighter' versions, as changes+reverts would probably overload even more. Who should we send versions for approval?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 07:47:40PM +0100, Platonides wrote:
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
That was before wiki markup became a real programming language. Now it's possible to write templates that require a substantial amount of time to render (20s for the interproject template you're asking about).
As every programmer, a wiki template programmer has to take care of the efficiency of his code. Adding servers will not improve the rendering time of slow templates.
Regards,
jeluf
On 1/16/07, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
That was before wiki markup became a real programming language. Now it's possible to write templates that require a substantial amount of time to render (20s for the interproject template you're asking about).
As every programmer, a wiki template programmer has to take care of the efficiency of his code. Adding servers will not improve the rendering time of slow templates.
Since there is still no (real) looping constructs, all wikitext execution should still be roughly linearly proportional to input size, or am I missing something?
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 1/16/07, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
That was before wiki markup became a real programming language. Now it's possible to write templates that require a substantial amount of time to render (20s for the interproject template you're asking about).
As every programmer, a wiki template programmer has to take care of the efficiency of his code. Adding servers will not improve the rendering time of slow templates.
Since there is still no (real) looping constructs, all wikitext execution should still be roughly linearly proportional to input size, or am I missing something?
If I recall correctly (people in this list know better) template inclusion and ParserFunction operations are done by repeteadly generating new strings. I suppose that as the strings get larger these operations get slower... maybe that's the cause of the slowness (maybe not).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides wrote:
Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional (only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish investigating?
It's 5 days since this reminding, a week since the slowness. We're missing the funcionality it provided. So, is there any reason blocking from restoring it? (if so, why hasn't been resolved yet? :D)
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
Jesus Christ!
I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
I made a general recommendation not to go running around saying THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING about templates BASED ON SUPPOSITION AND PARANOIA.
That doesn't mean that AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, WHEN DISCOVERED, SHOULD BE IGNORED.
WHEN THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, THEN IT MATTERS.
IN THIS CASE THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM.
UNTIL THAT GETS FIXED UP ON THE SOFTWARE END, THE PARTICULAR TEMPLATE WHICH IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, TAKING 10-20 SECONDS TO RENDER, MUST NOT BE WIDELY USED.
Try to use some common sense, people.
There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 16/01/07, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
The English Wikipedia took comments you and I made about being sensible and not worrying *too much* in a previous thread, and turned it into a guideline; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_worry_about_performance.
I assume, or hope, that these people still know when to suspend guidelines. I think most of them got it.
That doesn't mean that AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, WHEN DISCOVERED, SHOULD BE IGNORED.
To quote: "Adopt common sense, of course. If it's plain something could cause drastic problems, hold fire and check... -- (me)" -- this qualifies as causing problems...
...also, ""Policy" shouldn't really concern itself with server load except in the most extreme of cases; -- (brion)" -- and I imagine this qualifies as an extreme case.
Try to use some common sense, people.
Fervent agreement!
There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
If someone tells me that the English Wikipedia's horrible habit of taking things as written, as a suicide pact...has crept over to our end...I'm not sure if I'd be able to grok that.
Rob Church
2007/1/16, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com:
On 16/01/07, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
The English Wikipedia took comments you and I made about being sensible and not worrying *too much* in a previous thread, and turned it into a guideline; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_worry_about_performance.
I assume, or hope, that these people still know when to suspend guidelines. I think most of them got it.
That guideline page has been complemented with some more quotes from this discussion. If you find that strange, maybe you should check a couple of the policy pages.
From Wikipedia:Consensus on English Wikipedia (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Exceptions ): "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load, are usually held to have policy status (see Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines)."
From Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines on English Wikipedia, regarding how
policies are started ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#How_are_polic...) : "Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load."
So unless the word "declaration" is defined, it actually says on two enwiki policy pages that pretty much anything you guys say on server load matters should be made into policy/guideline pages at once. It is at least very easy to interpret it that way. The guys who do not like this maybe could take some measures against it. *hint*
/habj
On 28/01/07, habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
"Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load."
So unless the word "declaration" is defined, it actually says on two enwiki policy pages that pretty much anything you guys say on server load matters should be made into policy/guideline pages at once. It is at least very easy to interpret it that way. The guys who do not like this maybe could take some measures against it. *hint*
Oh, for god's sake. More common sense needed, obviously.
That particular statement is supposed to be applied as (example case):
* Brion discovers something a group of users is doing is causing unhelpful load * Brion asks people not to do it - with luck, asking is all that is needed - while we find a better solution * If asking doesn't work, then people can be *told* not to do it * A better solution is found
If everything Brion or Tim says is supposed to be taken as gospel, then we *will* have [[Wikipedia:Brion is on crack]] and [[Wikipedia:Users suck]]. Clearly you can see that this is ludicrous.
There are clearly far too many policy wonks on the English Wikipedia. I don't recall we have problems with any other project understanding this sort of thing.
Rob Church
On 28/01/07, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com wrote:
There are clearly far too many policy wonks on the English Wikipedia. I don't recall we have problems with any other project understanding this sort of thing.
I think it's a scaling issue: we've attracted a critical mass of the sort of obnoxious nerds who give aspergism a really bad name. See also the book 'Cyberselfish' by Paulina Borsook. [[WP:PRO]] on en: is an attempt at a how-to on clearing up policycruft.
- d.
2007/1/28, Rob Church robchur@gmail.com:
Oh, for god's sake. More common sense needed, obviously.
That particular statement is supposed to be applied as (example case):
Don't get me wrong now... common sense requires a certain amount of background information, usually. You have the background information, so you know how that should be read...
I completely agree with David Gerard on the scaling issue. You can say "there are far too many policy wonks on the English Wikipedia" all you like; just how does that make them go away? Hence, one might realise some things will be misunderstood in context and try and change them. That seems to me a more logical reaction than crying out loud every time people do the same kind of mistake, and wait for next time it happens. This particular case of policy insanity probably has wells, so it might be possible to try and do something about it slightly more upstream.
/habj
I completely agree with David Gerard on the scaling issue. You can say "there are far too many policy wonks on the English Wikipedia" all you like; just how does that make them go away?
How about saying "there can only be X policies on the Wikipedia, where X = the number we currently have. If you want to add another one, you must first remove an existing policy, by consensus." I.e. keep them constrained within a busy loop, fighting each other's policies. For bonus points, as time progresses, you could try gradually reducing X (using a Last-In-First-Out approach), thus forcing people to condense the rules into "meta-policies" (such as "assume good faith"), rather than obsessing about petty details. And when the rules fit on the back of a Wikipedia membership card in 14-point font, then it's time to stop reducing X. :-)
All the best, Nick.
On 1/28/07, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
How about saying "there can only be X policies on the Wikipedia, where X = the number we currently have. If you want to add another one, you must first remove an existing policy, by consensus." I.e. keep them constrained within a busy loop, fighting each other's policies. For bonus points, as time progresses, you could try gradually reducing X (using a Last-In-First-Out approach), thus forcing people to condense the rules into "meta-policies" (such as "assume good faith"), rather than obsessing about petty details. And when the rules fit on the back of a Wikipedia membership card in 14-point font, then it's time to stop reducing X. :-)
That's a good policy! Now, let me go make a 200-square-foot membership card.
How about saying "there can only be X policies on the Wikipedia, where X = the number we currently have. If you want to
add another
one, you must first remove an existing policy, by consensus." I.e. keep them constrained within a busy loop, fighting
each other's
policies. For bonus points, as time progresses, you could try gradually reducing X (using a Last-In-First-Out approach), thus forcing people to condense the rules into "meta-policies" (such as "assume good faith"), rather than obsessing about
petty details.
And when the rules fit on the back of a Wikipedia membership card in 14-point font, then it's time to stop reducing X. :-)
That's a good policy! Now, let me go make a 200-square-foot membership card.
For the purposes of this exercise, I was assuming something the exact same size and shape as a credit card, with a Wikipedia logo, your real name, your username, and possibly date you started using the Wikipedia, and maybe a photo, on one side; and the rules on the other. If you wanted the card to have a functional purpose (beside just as a symbol of membership), I guess you could have a smart-chip embedded in the card, which could optionally be used somehow as part of the login process, when inserted into a card reader.
However, I was not thinking something like the International Driver's Permits, that's a bit of paper that folds out a number of times to become the height and width of a newspaper, with tiny legalese writing all over it! :-)
All the best, Nick.
On 29/01/07, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
For the purposes of this exercise, I was assuming something the exact same size and shape as a credit card, with a Wikipedia logo, your real name, your username, and possibly date you started using the Wikipedia, and maybe a photo, on one side; and the rules on the other.
* Neutral point of view * Verifiability * No original research * Assume good faith * No personal attacks * Don't bite the newbies
That's it for en:wp - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO . All else is commentary.
(this is *way* off topic, but if the stupidity of some obsessive policy creators on en:wp is getting up your nose, that page attempts to be practical suggestions on what to do about policycruft.)
So ... how about that technical stuff! Gosh!
- d. (not quite helping)
Brion Vibber escribió:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides wrote:
Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional (only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish investigating?
It's 5 days since this reminding, a week since the slowness. We're missing the funcionality it provided. So, is there any reason blocking from restoring it? (if so, why hasn't been resolved yet? :D)
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
Jesus Christ!
I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
I quote me: "here there is a collision" between this general guidelines and this case.
I made a general recommendation not to go running around saying THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING about templates BASED ON SUPPOSITION AND PARANOIA.
That doesn't mean that AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, WHEN DISCOVERED, SHOULD BE IGNORED.
WHEN THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, THEN IT MATTERS. IN THIS CASE THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM.
Damn, if i though that it didn't matter, i would have just reverted it, or even duplicated, not asking for the opinion of THOSE WHO KNOW.
UNTIL THAT GETS FIXED UP ON THE SOFTWARE END,
Of course, this is what we want: it being solved :D
Brion...
THE PARTICULAR TEMPLATE WHICH IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, TAKING 10-20 SECONDS TO RENDER, MUST NOT BE WIDELY USED.
...and JeLuF "As every programmer, a wiki template programmer has to take care of the efficiency of his code."
I refered to this before. How is the efficiency of the templates measured? Apart of just trying it and waiting to see if servers go down :P
Diclaimer: I didn't code it, i didn't even watched its source until today. I don't say it to be a good style. It isn't easy to completely understand. I have even found what seems to be bugs. So don't eat me!
I know there's a problem. What is being done about it? What can we do to help with it? How do we do it?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Platonides wrote:
How is the efficiency of the templates measured? Apart of just trying it and waiting to see if servers go down :P
This is very easy:
1) Stick it on a page 2) Hit "preview" 3) react in shock and horror at how long it took to render 4) run it several times and compare against lack of template to confirm that, yes, it is simply adding that template which causes 100-fold increase in rendering time
I know there's a problem. What is being done about it? What can we do to help with it? How do we do it?
Between other things, someone sooner or later will get a chance to poke at the software to try to fix the performance problem.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Platonides wrote:
Can we do temporary edits to the template to make it semi-functional (only a couple of switchs), or it can't be touched until you finish investigating?
It's 5 days since this reminding, a week since the slowness. We're missing the funcionality it provided. So, is there any reason blocking from restoring it? (if so, why hasn't been resolved yet? :D)
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
Jesus Christ!
I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them.
I made a general recommendation not to go running around saying THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING about templates BASED ON SUPPOSITION AND PARANOIA.
Now we are confused, running in circles crashing into each other and taking decisions based on suppositions, because...
That doesn't mean that AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, WHEN DISCOVERED, SHOULD BE IGNORED.
WHEN THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, THEN IT MATTERS.
IN THIS CASE THERE IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM.
UNTIL THAT GETS FIXED UP ON THE SOFTWARE END, THE PARTICULAR TEMPLATE WHICH IS AN ACTUAL, REAL, MEASURABLE PROBLEM, TAKING 10-20 SECONDS TO RENDER, MUST NOT BE WIDELY USED.
...what we want to know is very simple:
a) are you going to change mediawiki so it works, or b) should we forget it and make a new one (and in that case, do you know what construction exactly should be avoided, or should we guess and try at Special:Expandtemplate), or c) you don't yet know? d) [other option I didn't think about]
And people are already implementing different solutions that they think are best, multiplying different templates, while others are waiting for that template to be functional again, and lots of articles meanwhile lose their interproject links... *because nobody knows what to expect*.
So... could any of you please give us some information about this specific problem, so people at eswiki can make an informed decision?
Try to use some common sense, people.
There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
'Policy' was between quotes and Platonides is not a native speaker. Probably he meant something like 'rule' (probably not, but I understood it that way), and he explicitly said that it doesn't apply here. es:WP:PBF :-P
Greetings.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Carlos wrote:
...what we want to know is very simple:
a) are you going to change mediawiki so it works, or
Yes.
b) should we forget it and make a new one (and in that case, do you know what construction exactly should be avoided, or should we guess and try at Special:Expandtemplate), or
Do that anyway; the template's horribly ugly!
And I'm sorry for my harsh words.
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com / brion @ wikimedia.org)
Brion Vibber wrote:
Carlos wrote:
...what we want to know is very simple:
a) are you going to change mediawiki so it works, or
Yes.
b) should we forget it and make a new one (and in that case, do you know what construction exactly should be avoided, or should we guess and try at Special:Expandtemplate), or
Do that anyway; the template's horribly ugly!
Thanks! :)
On 16/01/07, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Jesus Christ! I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them. I made a general recommendation not to go running around saying THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING about templates BASED ON SUPPOSITION AND PARANOIA. Try to use some common sense, people. There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
Fortunately, this has been written up as policy: [[m:Don't be dense]]. Phew! Writing it up as policy should fix the problem!
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
David Gerard wrote:
On 16/01/07, Brion Vibber wrote:
Jesus Christ! I can't say words without having some God-given "policy" read into them. I made a general recommendation not to go running around saying THE SKY IS FALLING THE SKY IS FALLING about templates BASED ON SUPPOSITION AND PARANOIA. Try to use some common sense, people. There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
Fortunately, this has been written up as policy: [[m:Don't be dense]]. Phew! Writing it up as policy should fix the problem!
*cries*
:)
- -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
Fortunately, this has been written up as policy: [[m:Don't be dense]]. Phew! Writing it up as policy should fix the problem!
*cries*
<rant> Before anyone feels tempted to propose new policies, can they please try a simple test first: Take the negative/opposite, and ask yourself if anyone normal would support it, or do that thing. If the answer is "no", then the policy or naming is probably daft, because it's not telling you anything you don't already know.
Example: "Don't be dense" --opposite--> "Try to be completely stupid" ---Would anyone normal support?--> "No" --> policy is a waste of space.
For what it's worth, the same idea also applies to the names of action groups too:
Example: "Women against rape" --opposite--> "Men in favour of rape" ---Would anyone normal support?--> "No" --> stupid name. Example: "International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War" --opposite--> "International Physicians trying to encourage Nuclear War" ---Would anyone normal support?--> "No" --> stupid name.
So, if you feel tempted to come up with policies or guidelines such as "Don't torture cute kittens and then bury them alive", then please: Don't. Thanks! </rant>
All the best, Nick.
2007/1/22, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com:
<rant> Before anyone feels tempted to propose new policies, can they please try a simple test first: Take the negative/opposite, and ask yourself if anyone normal would support it, or do that thing. If the answer is "no", then the policy or naming is probably daft, because it's not telling you anything you don't already know.
Example: "Don't be dense" --opposite--> "Try to be completely stupid" ---Would anyone normal support?--> "No" --> policy is a waste of space.
I may agree with your basic idea, but certainly not with the way you try to implement it. The opposite of "Don't be dense" that you should compare with is not "Try to be completely stupid" but "Feel free to be however stupid you want." And I could imagine there ARE people supporting that, although they will not be a large group.
On 22/01/07, Nick Jenkins nickpj@gmail.com wrote:
There's no "policy" here. Just *sense*.
Fortunately, this has been written up as policy: [[m:Don't be dense]]. Phew! Writing it up as policy should fix the problem!
*cries*
<rant> Before anyone feels tempted to propose new policies, can they please try a simple test first:
The page existed ages ago. I was making an oblique comment pretty much agreeing with what you say.
The problem is a fundamental issue of thought processes - many people involved in Wikipedia seem *unable* to deal with ambiguity and feel they must resolve grey areas at all costs.
My own rant on the subject is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:PRO .
So, if you feel tempted to come up with policies or guidelines such as "Don't torture cute kittens > and then bury them alive", then please: Don't. Thanks!
[[WP:BEANS]]
- d.
Nick Jenkins wrote: <snip>
"Don't torture cute kittens and then bury them alive"
That's a perfectly normal behaviour! :-P
On 17/01/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Fortunately, this has been written up as policy: [[m:Don't be dense]]. Phew! Writing it up as policy should fix the problem!
We also now have the [[Wikipedia:Everything Brion says is gospel]] policy, which means we also have [[Wikipedia:Brion is on crack]] and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia sucks]] policies now.
Rob Church
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 04:16:02PM +0000, Rob Church wrote:
We also now have the [[Wikipedia:Everything Brion says is gospel]] policy, which means we also have [[Wikipedia:Brion is on crack]] and
ROTFL. Really.
Cheers, -- jra
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
On 18/01/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
:D
Rob Church
On 18/01/07, Domas Mituzas midom.lists@gmail.com wrote:
There was a 'policy' of users don't needing to worry about server issues ('if there aren't enough servers, we will add more'), but here there is a collision.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Stupidity_Reactor
- d.
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org