[Wikimedia-l] Fire Drill Re: Wikimedia sites not easy to archive (Was Re: Knol is closing tomorrow )

[John]

*Simple.wikipedia is nothing like en.wikipedia* I care to dispute that
statement, All WMF wikis are setup basically the same (an odd extension
here or there is different, and different namespace names at times) but for
the purpose of recovery simplewiki_p is a very standard example. this issue
isnt just about enwiki_p but *all* wmf wikis. Doing a data recovery for
enwiki vs simplewiki is just a matter of time, for enwiki a 5 day estimate
would be fairly standard (depending on server setup) and lower times for
smaller databases. typically you can explain it in a rate of X revisions
processed per Y time unit, regardless of the project. and that rate should
be similar for everything given the same hardware setup.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:37 AM, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:30 AM, John <phoenixoverride at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Ill run a quick benchmark and import the full history of
> simple.wikipedia to
> > my laptop wiki on a stick, and give an exact duration
>
> Simple.wikipedia is nothing like en.wikipedia.  For one thing, there's
> no need to turn on $wgCompressRevisions with simple.wikipedia.
>
> Is $wgCompressRevisions still used?  I haven't followed this in quite a
> while.
>