Jump to content

Proposal talk:Make Wikimedia scale

From Strategic Planning
Latest comment: 14 years ago by in topic peer-to-peer

One of the most important proposals I have seen here so far. I hope that the fact that it is away from mainstream concerns won't relegate it to relative obscurity. To enfasize: The concerns expressed here should be put on a par, in terms of importance, with whatever concerns end up being expressed by the majority of proposals (if we ever get to analyse them under that perspective, maybe Melancholie's tools would end up being useful...)-- Thamus joyfulnoise 19:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is an important topic to think about, but the proposal appears to have already reached a conclusion. As the project grows some things will have to grow as well, but beyond the need to have server power keep pace with traffic it is not obvious what will need to grow in what proportion. It is in the nature of things that The Office could easily grow (doubling, tripling, etc) without this leading to clear benefits. - Brya 07:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


Some proposals will have massive impact on end-users, including non-editors. Some will have minimal impact. What will be the impact of this proposal on our end-users? -- Philippe 00:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Video Reading

Here I read the text : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7huHj06ph8c Mdupont 19:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)Reply


A Transactional Scalable Distributed Data Store: Wikipedia on a DHT, which I added as a ref, seems to present a viable way to scale under offline mode (and other connectivity interruption) conditions. It's not clear whether it would use more or less total bandwidth than the existing client-server architecture, either. It has already inspired my boss to consider peer-to-peer as a serious solution to real problems. I hope it gets the consideration it's worthy of. 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but this isn't the relevant page. What you're looking for is Category:Proposals for distributed infrastracture. --Nemo 07:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
You are welcome, but might I point out that the proposal is for scaling? 05:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply