Comment by troupo
20 days ago
Run a mediawiki, as described in the post. It's very heavy. Specifically for history I'm guessing it has to re-parse the entire page and do all link and template lookups because previous versions of the page won't be in any cache
The original post says it's not actually a burden though; they just don't like it.
If something is so heavy that 2 requests/second matters, it would've been completely infeasible in say 2005 (e.g. a low power n100 is ~20x faster than the athlon xp 3200+ I used back then. An i5-12600 is almost 100x faster. Storage is >1000x faster now). Or has mediawiki been getting less efficient over the years to keep up with more powerful hardware?
Oh, I was a bit off. They also indexed diffs
> And I mean that - they indexed every single diff on every page for every change ever made. Frequently with spikes of more than 10req/s. Of course, this made MediaWiki and my database server very unhappy, causing load spikes, and effective downtime/slowness for the human users.
Does MW not store diffs as diffs (I'd think it would for storage efficiency)? That shouldn't really require much computation. Did diffs take 30s+ to render 15-20 years ago?
For what it's worth my kiwix copy of Wikipedia has a ~5ms response time for an uncached article according to Firefox. If I hit a single URL with wrk (so some caching at least with disks. Don't know what else kiwix might do) at concurrency 8, it does 13k rps on my n305 with a 500 us average response time. That's over 20Gbit/s, so basically impossible to actually saturate. If I load test from another computer it uses ~0.2 cores to max out 1Gbit/s. Different code bases and presumably kiwix is a bit more static, but at least provides a little context to compare with for orders of magnitude. A 3 OOM difference seems pretty extreme.
Incidentally, local copies of things are pretty great. It really makes you notice how slow the web is when links open in like 1 frame.
1 reply →