I do appreciate that the ops team is working to improve reliability and
performance of the database access. Unfortunately it seems to me that there
is a disconnect between ops and tool devs. I wonder if the ops actually
looked at how many user databases have been created and how frequently they
got accessed (all that info should be readily available to them). The logs
would also have told the ops which users relied in user DBs on the project
DB servers. A direct email ahead of time would have gone a long way.
The phabricator post contains the same language I've heard many times
before: The tools devs shouldn't have used the feature anyways. To that I
say, well, we still did and it worked great. Volunteer developers have a
limited time budged with which they create tools that large amounts of
users (editors and readers alike) rely on. That is just the reality of
things, and it is not the ideal op fantasy, I know. The ops seem to be in
an asymmetric position of power here. It sure sounds a lot like a take it
or leave it situation to me.
On Sat, Dec 23, 2017 at 12:13 PM John <phoenixoverride(a)gmail.com> wrote:
why did this happen?
Martin
See
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/phame/post/view/70/new_wiki_replica_serve…
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia Cloud Services mailing list
Cloud(a)lists.wikimedia.org (formerly labs-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org)
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/cloud