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.'"
I was always impressed with how fast pages loaded, after seeing how small their operation is I'm even more impressed now!
Go to any newspaper from the NYT to any one in a smaller city (say, Springfield's State Journal-Register) and the difference in load times is HUGE. Probably has to do with all the ads served from third party servers in the newspapers, what's the use of having a humungous server with giant pipes if your readers' pages have to wait for a flash ad served from a 486 powered by gerbils?
If I link to the SJR form one of my journals it slows down! I mean, I can see if it's a front page slashdotting a little paper like that but come on, a user journal?
And Wikipedia isn't all their servers serve; iinm the uncyclopedia shares servers. Impressive, indeed.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
I don't care how few servers they have, whats more interesting to me is that they run an ultra-high traffic site, which they aren't having trouble paying for, and do it without adds.
I.e. the promised follow-up to this story about moving to the new Chicago datacenter? You know, the one where Mr. Taco promised a follow-up story "in a few days" about the "ridiculously overpowered new hardware".
I was quite looking forward to that, but it never eventuated, unless I missed it. It's certainly not filed under Topics->Slashdot.
The wiki software, MediaWiki, was written for Wikipedia and is licensed under the GPL ( http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/How_does_MediaWiki_work%3F. According to Wikipedia they use MySQL as their database and run it all on Linux servers.
Or do a hurricane dance, and let nature do its thing...
Having all their servers in Tampa, FL (of all places given hurricanes, frequent lightning, flooding, etc there) doesn't seem too smart - I would have thought, given Wikipedia's popularity, their servers would be geographically spread out in multiple locations.
Though to do that adds a level of complexity and costs that even many for-profit ventures, such as Slashdot, likely can't afford / justify; Slashdot's servers are in one place - Chicago ... to digress a bit, I notice this site's accessibility (ie. more page not found / timeouts lately) has been spotty since the servers move.
Ron
Yea, a single datacenter seems really risky, especially considering some of the shenanigans that have been going on
Check out my sysadmin blog!
Although much of the Mediawiki software is a hideous twitching blob of PHP Hell, the base functionality is fairly simple and run perpetually and scale massively as long as you don't mess with it.
What spoils a lot of projects like this is the constant need for customization. Wikimedia essentially can't be customized (except for plugins obviously, which you install at your own peril) and that is a big reason why it scales so massively.
As for Wikipedia itself, I suspect it is massively weighted in favor of reads. That simplifies circumstances a lot.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
Exactly. A bank requires "six nines" of performance (i.e., right 99.9999% of the time) and probably wants even better than that. Six nines works out to about 30 seconds of downtime per year.
It seems like Wikipedia is getting things right 99% of the time, or maybe even 99.9% of the time ("three nines"). That's a pretty low standard relative to how most companies do business.
Slashdot is great at taking down sites on crappy shared hosting, but anything with a decently configured dedicated server will likely survive just fine.
Wikipedia's probably getting hit with hundreds of times the traffic Slashdot is at all times.
Slashdot does .. what? 40 mbit of traffic at peak? Wikipedia
is roughly 100 times larger. (And WP has three datacenters, not one)
Slashdot traffic hasn't created noticeable blips on Wikipedia's radar for years.
OTOH, if Wikipedia linked slashdot on every page slashdot would go down, if do to nothing else but bandwidth exhaustion.
I don't actually know anything about the total computing power Google employs, but I do know that they will purchase on the order of 1,000-10,000 processors merely to evaluate them prior to making a real purchase.
The enemies of Democracy are
Your reasoning may be a bit specious. If your databases get "several thousand writes per second", it sounds like this may be massive underuse of your bandwidth - i.e. your servers or databases may be able to handle hundreds of thousands or millions of writes per second. If a few seconds were lost or went down, then the incoming traffic might get cached or queued, waiting for services to come back on line. Once the connection is re-established, the write backlog might take only a few seconds or a few fractions of a second to catch up and be back to real time. Users might be unaware of the whole thing, or they would re-log and try again, and there would be no perceptible throttle or bottleneck to data logging. Any system that presses its bandwidth limits, any system that walks dangerously close to its top capacity, with no capacitances or reserves, is likely to be down quite a bit. A system such as yours, which hardly taxes its bandwidth at all (I am guessing) could certainly tolerate lost seconds. Admittedly, your system may have had problems like this in the past, and the system was upgraded to handle higher capacity. . . . Which is why Wikipedia no longer runs on just one machine. It does sound as though Wikipedia may have found a sweet spot, balancing load against reserve capacity or bandwidth, for robust up-time versus economic efficiency. I am sure that this is a topic that computer and network engineers have studied exhaustively - perhaps someone else knows?
You know what I thought was interesting? This story (which was linked to from this /. story titled A Look At the Workings of Google's Data Centers contained the following snippets.
and
But this was immediately followed by:
For some reason I'd always believed they used pretty much standard components in everything.