[Labs-l] Yet another partial labs outage

[Petr Bena]

Proper bots survive outages though, check wm-bot's uptime.

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Petr Bena <benapetr at gmail.com> wrote:
> Because it's labs :P
>
> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:17 PM, Maximilian Doerr
> <maximilian.doerr at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why is labs constantly failing.  My bots keep dying! WAAAAAAAAAAAHHHH!! :p
>>
>> Cyberpower678
>> English Wikipedia Account Creation Team
>> Mailing List Moderator
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 17, 2015, at 14:10, Petr Bena <benapetr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Note: my previous mail was not intended to Gerard, but all people who
>> complains about this :)
>>
>> Also tool-labs may be a little exception here, high availability is
>> expected there but this tool was hosted somewhere else though.
>>
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Petr Bena <benapetr at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I agree with Ryan on this, if it's production stuff it shouldn't run
>> on labs unless you are OK with outages. There is number of things that
>> are more or less considered production, like wm-bot or huggle's
>> components, but none of them are critical and it's not a big deal to
>> have occasional outage. If your service must be 24/7 it should be on
>> production servers and operation team needs to be trained how to
>> operate it to ensure high availability. If you fail to do that, you
>> can't blame labs people, just yourself.
>>
>> On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 9:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> Saying a similar service is not recognising the FACT that production grade
>> services are running on Labs. They are. Stating that something similar is
>> worked on does NOT mean that it will indeed replace what is in FACT used in
>> a production manner. Because that means that it is a development criteria to
>> actually replace the functionality itself.
>>
>> I do solute the Labs people in that they have improved the stability of WDQ
>> a lot. They did puppetise the services needed for running many of the tools,
>> they made additional memory available and they collaborated with Magnus on
>> making the services more robust.
>>
>> However, functionality in the pipeline is not what is being used and,
>> theories of what production means is not really what you can observe. They
>> are theories and as such not reliable.
>> Thanks,
>>      GerardM
>>
>> On 17 May 2015 at 08:23, Tim Landscheidt <tim at tim-landscheidt.de> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ryan Lane <rlane32 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [WDQ]
>>
>>
>> If it's production-ish, it should likely either be moved to production
>> or
>> you should put a bit of effort into making it work across multiple
>> instances. The ideal goal is for services to be stateless, with their
>> state
>> living in databases that are also split across instances. It's best to
>> have
>> the service config managed (ideally puppetized since it's what wikimedia
>> uses) so that a loss of an instance is only a brief inconvenience.
>>
>>
>> There are efforts to deploy a similar service with
>> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing (Phabrica-
>> tor project at
>> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/wikidata-query-service/).
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Labs-l mailing list
>> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Labs-l mailing list
>> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Labs-l mailing list
>> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Labs-l mailing list
>> Labs-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/labs-l
>>