Last modified: 2013-05-29 08:05:00 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T46565, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.
Bug 44565 - en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org takes 10-20 seconds to load
en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org takes 10-20 seconds to load
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Product: Wikimedia Labs
Classification: Unclassified
deployment-prep (beta) (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: High major
: ---
Assigned To: Nobody - You can work on this!
http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/
:
Depends on:
Blocks:
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2013-01-31 22:04 UTC by Željko Filipin
Modified: 2013-05-29 08:05 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Description Željko Filipin 2013-01-31 22:04:24 UTC 
en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org was down today. (See "wmflabs.org down?" thread[1]). It is up now, but it is pretty slow. It takes 10-20 seconds to load the home page. Petr Bena suggested I should report it as a bug.

[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/labs-l/2013-January/thread.html
Comment 1 Andre Klapper 2013-02-01 00:16:37 UTC 
Cannot reproduce, http://en.wikipedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ finishing loading within ~4 seconds here.
Comment 2 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2013-02-05 10:45:19 UTC 
That was due to the deployment-squid instance having its cache on glusterfs. I have migrated the cache dir to /mnt and that fixed the performance issue.
Comment 3 Željko Filipin 2013-02-09 21:38:14 UTC 
I am not sure how bug lifecycle is handled. Please let me know if there is anything I should do. Should I change the status to verified? Or is setting it to resolved (as it is now) enough?
Comment 4 Antoine "hashar" Musso (WMF) 2013-02-09 22:10:45 UTC 
RESOLVED is usually enough. Whenever I do verify a bug is actually fixed, I mark them VERIFIED, but that is really just me :-]
Comment 5 Andre Klapper 2013-02-11 17:14:46 UTC 
(In reply to comment #3)
> Should I change the status to verified?

On https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Bug_management/Bug_report_life_cycle I wrote "Optionally the status VERIFIED is set if a QA tester or the reporter checked that the after the fix has been deployed." until somebody proves me wrong. :)
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
First Last Prev Next    This bug is not in your last search results.

Navigation
Links