[webkit-dev] to reitveld or not to reitveld

[Ojan Vafai]

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan at google.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Jun 7, 2009 at 7:51 AM, Mark Rowe <mrowe at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> There are also concerns about access to the data store of the application,
>> backup procedures, etc.  Our existing servers are well understood in this
>> regard.   We've also found in the past that having services spread across
>> different systems causes confusion when something goes wrong, for whatever
>> reason, as it's not clear who to contact to address the problem.
>>
>
> For what it's worth, we've had next to zero maintenance effort go into
> keeping rietveld running on appengine. As far as I know, it's been pretty
> much stable and problem free. But I don't actually maintain it, so I can't
> say that for sure. :)
>

It seems to me that all the issues raised with using reitveld are solvable.
Assuming you all are OK with doing this iteratively instead of needing all
the issues to be resolved on day one, I think we can probably start taking
concrete steps forward.

Maintenance/hosting is the biggest unanswered question. Would hosting this
on reitveld (which does it's own replication and backups) be a deal-breaker?
If so, there are a couple options a quick search brought up. One is
http://arachnid.github.com/bdbdatastore/, which is linked to from the
AppEngine blog as a way of hosting appengine apps on your own hardware.
Another is
http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/gae_backup_and_restore.html, which
is a backup option for appengine.

I'll reiterate that we've had great uptime and reliability for the Chromium
reitveld instance on appengine. So, to me, hosting it yourself seems like
extra work without much real-world benefit.

Ojan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20090611/53f2c74c/attachment.html>