[Foundation-l] [Wikitech-l] second-class wikis

Mon Feb 2 17:49:24 UTC 2009

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Marcus Buck <me at marcusbuck.org> wrote:
> That's a true answer, but at the same time as useless as it can be.
> If it's indeed only a matter of "getting around to it" (is it?), then
> the fact that they didn't came around to it since April 2008 would
> proove my "accusation" that the "little projects" are indeed regarded
> second-class.

The reason s3 replication is halted on the toolserver and not s1 or s2
is apparently because Wikimedia deleted the needed s3 logs but not the
s1 or s2 logs.  The reason they did this is probably because the
master database server for s3 ran out of disk space more quickly than
the masters for s1 and s2, requiring more old logs to be deleted.
It's not because of discrimination against the little projects, it's
mainly just dumb luck that s3 is what got hit (maybe the server had
less free disk space for some reason, or more logs).

The reimport process could have started sooner.  However, new servers
were about to arrive, so River decided to postpone it until they did,
for administrative convenience.

I don't think any of this is some plot against the small wikis.  I
remember a very long period of time when s1 (and only s1, the English
Wikipedia) was continuously lagged hours, days, or longer, while s2
(and s3, if that existed by then) was up-to-date.  This, again, was
for technical reasons, not political ones.

This should really be on toolserver-l, though.