3 ms·
This article is about Wikipedia which is ran by the not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation - not Wikia which is a commercial wiki company founded by Wikipedia foun
by halo 18y ago
This article is about Wikipedia which is ran by the not-for-profit Wikimedia Foundation - not Wikia which is a commercial wiki company founded by Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
It's probably because it's not economical for the huge amount of traffic that Wikipedia shifts each month and there's no real advantage to moving AWS. I'm not totally convinced that AWS could deal with the traffic of the 8th biggest site on the web moving to use them overnight either.
Edit: The question has been changed making my answer a rather redundant non-sequitur.
- shawndrost 18y agoEr, again, sorry for the edit. You're probably right about Amazon handling the traffic, but here's the data I found trying to figure that out in case everyone's interested: -Web services already used more bandwidth than amazon.com at the end of 07 (http://bit.ly/T0hX1 http://bit.ly/T0hX1) -Wikipedia.org gets about the same amount of traffic as amazon.com (http://bit.ly/1I4o7L http://bit.ly/1I4o7L)
- alecco 18y agoWikipedia needs better uptime than AWS. Don't get me wrong, AWS is probably a good idea but not just yet.
- shawndrost 18y agoHmm, my best research shows that Wikipedia's uptime is 99.8% [1], and AWS' SLA gives 99.9% [2]. [1] http://uptime.pingdom.com/site/month_summary/site_name/en.wikipedia.org http://uptime.pingdom.com/site/month_summary/site_name/en.wi... [2] http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/media-coverage/2007/10/10/wired-new-from-amazon-guaranteed-server-uptime/ http://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/media-coverage/2007/10/10/wi...
- alecco 18y agoBut it will probably compound and net result will be more like 0.999 * 0.998 = 0.997