On Sep 30, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Platonides platonides@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/09/12 03:31, Krinkle wrote:
On Sep 29, 2012, at 9:41 PM, Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com wrote:
And why is the WMF considering not providing db replication for it?
[citation needed]
I think you misunderstood.
-- Krinkle
Written by Erik Moeller the 25th Sep:
Chapters are autonomous organizations, and it's WM-DE's call how much / whether it wants to continue to invest in infrastructure of any kind (and the decision of funding bodies like the FDC to accept or reject that proposition). However, for our part, we will not continue to support the current arrangement (DB replication, hosting in our data-center, etc.) indefinitely.
He is writing with his "WMF hat", the above 'we' refers to the WMF. So no, there's no misunderstanding: The WMF has threaten to stop providing the db replication. That would be a really bad move to do, of course (and a gratuitous one, since there aren't technical or financial reasons for doing that). And I hope they won't do that.
Ah, I understand the confusion now.
If I understand correctly Samuel was talking about the (future) labs environment, not the Toolserver. The above citation from Erik, however, is about the Toolserver (not Labs).
Erik is saying here that WMF will (at some unspecified point in the future) stop providing the services it is currently providing for Toolserver (such as the space in their datacenter and arranging db replication). It does not mean they will (or are considering to) stop providing db replication in general (just not to Toolserver).
Maybe Samuel already knew that and he was talking about Toolserver as well, in that case: never mind, sorry about the confusion. I just wanted to make sure you know that there are confirmed and scheduled plans for Wikimedia Labs to have a live db replication arranged between the labs cluster and the wmf production cluster. As far as I know there are no considerations to not provide this, quite the contrary.
-- Krinkle