Slashdot Mirror
Huge Traffic On Wikipedia's Non-Profit Budget
miller60 writes "'As a non-profit running one of the world's busiest web destinations, Wikipedia provides an unusual case study of a high-performance site. In an era when Google and Microsoft can spend $500 million on one of their global data center projects, Wikipedia's infrastructure runs on fewer than 300 servers housed in a single data center in Tampa, Fla.' Domas Mituzas of MySQL/Sun gave a presentation Monday at the Velocity conference that provided an inside look at the technology behind Wikipedia, which he calls an 'operations underdog.'"
Okay. So pay attention to the sentence before the one you quoted which read, "I'm not suggesting you should follow how we do it."
Most of Wikipedia is a collection of static pages. Most users of Wikipedia are just reading the latest version of an article, to which they were taken by a non-Wikipedia search engine. So all Wikipedia has to do for them is serve a static page. No database work or page generation is required.
Older revisions of pages come from the database, as do the versions one sees during editing and previewing, the history information, and such. Those operations involve the MySQL databases. There are only about 10-20 updates per second taking place in the editing end of the system. When a page is updated, static copies are propagated out to the static page servers after a few tens of seconds.
Article editing is a check-out/check in system. When you start editing a page, you get a version token, and when you update the page, the token has to match the latest revision or you get an edit conflict. It's all standard form requests; there's no need for frantic XMLHttpRequest processing while you're working on a page.
Because there are no ads, there's no overhead associated with inserting variable ad info into the pages. No need for ad rotators, ad trackers, "beacons" or similar overhead.
Don't be too harsh -- the standards are dependent on the application. Your application, by the nature of the information and its purposes, requires a different standard of reliability than Wikipedia does. You're certainly entitled to be proud of yourself for maintaining that standard.
But don't let that turn into being derogatory about the Wikipedia operation. Wikipedia has identified the correct standard for their application, and by doing so they have successfully avoided the costs and hassle of over-engineering. To each his own...
What does "Non-Profit Budget" mean, anyway? There are non-profits bigger than the company I work for. Non-profit isn't the same as poorly financed.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?