Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-01-21/Technology report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discuss this story

On First Quarterly Review makes for interesting reading, just wanted to chime in with two points...

  1. The transcript is super bare bones, so if anyone has questions please don't be shy about using the talk page. :)
  2. If anyone is interested, we recently decided to make what was formerly a private team mailing list a public one. Feel free to join the Editor Engagement list if you want, though you're warned that we often talk about details of ongoing projects without a lot of background or introduction for those completely unfamiliar.

Anyway, thanks for the coverage Jarry! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "885 servers" - Are you sure that's just in tampa and dc data centers. The blog post made it sound like that was the grand total, and there are a couple servers in the Netherlands. Bawolff (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had my own doubts, so I asked that very question on IRC yesterday. Unfortunately I didn't get an answer, so I decided to leave it as-is. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 22:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The data centre migration seems to coincide with a delay I've been seeing in article cache invalidation. Prior to 22 January, edits I submitted were immediately reflected as the latest version of the article, assuming the page wasn't subject to pending change review (ah, the ever-increasing indignities of editing without logging in). In other words, after supplying an edit summary and submitting a change, the article page would automatically refresh, perhaps with a brief delay, with the changes visible. This isn't necessarily true anymore. In the past, even when the site was under a heavy load for one reason or another, a subsequent null edit would let me see the version of the article that reflected my changes; that isn't necessarily true anymore. Another change I never saw until now: it is possible for a null edit/purge to fail even when article history shows my changes. In other words, it now appears possible for the most recent WP:permalink for an article to differ from the default version of an article. Assuming I had just edited Metacarcinus these can now differ, something I haven't seen before, after years of editing:

68.165.77.6 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-01-21/Technology_report&oldid=1136634351"