regular rate limits would still be open as normal.
2017-06-05 15611, 2017
Freso isn't sure he likes the sound of that... :/ Also moves from being "donations only" to "paying for (improved) service"...
2017-06-05 15613, 2017
samj1912
CatQuest: you can setup your own server to get faster speeds too ;)
2017-06-05 15625, 2017
Quesito
hmm
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
CatQuest
yes the "paying for (improved) service"
2017-06-05 15639, 2017
CatQuest
I don't lik that
2017-06-05 15644, 2017
samj1912
Not so sure about Picard Pro
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
CatQuest
🙅
2017-06-05 15657, 2017
Sophist-UK
Nor me. Just throwing it into the mix.
2017-06-05 15600, 2017
zas
It will allow devs to move to json from xml, and ease the transition to ws/3
2017-06-05 15606, 2017
ruaok
there was a blog post circa 2013 or so that talked about higher rate limits that were paid and people LOVED the idea.
2017-06-05 15639, 2017
CatQuest
well this is 2017 and apparently people don't.
2017-06-05 15640, 2017
Sophist-UK
Its a difficult conflict - open source and creative commons says keep it free - but we have bills to pay and free doesn't pay them.
2017-06-05 15647, 2017
ruaok
regardless, we dont have to make fine grained decisions on this now.
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
samj1912
we can definitely shift to a json ws3 but for the paid part maybe we can put up a survey/blog
2017-06-05 15658, 2017
Quesito
I think we should marinate on the transition--but that it is a good direction to move into
2017-06-05 15602, 2017
ruaok
Sophist-UK: we have other ways to pay the bills.
2017-06-05 15605, 2017
SothoTalKer
how much faster would be the "faster" be? And what about me doing my own script, will i get an api key, too? :D
2017-06-05 15618, 2017
ruaok
Quesito: that. I think in general we all agree that moving to more control is good.
2017-06-05 15618, 2017
reosarevok
No SothoTalKer, you get it slower, as always
2017-06-05 15621, 2017
CatQuest
i mena if the "faster" wastrivila then.. but still
2017-06-05 15624, 2017
ruaok
reosarevok: <3
2017-06-05 15626, 2017
Freso
Anyway.
2017-06-05 15641, 2017
Freso
The "paying to improve service" can be discussed later.
2017-06-05 15642, 2017
Quesito
SothoTalKer: you get nothing ;)
2017-06-05 15646, 2017
Freso
+1 to API keys either way.
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
CatQuest
+1 to api keys
2017-06-05 15653, 2017
SothoTalKer
for next time i just use another nick so you don't recognize me :p
2017-06-05 15657, 2017
ruaok
so, without getting bogged down in the details for now, we can start the plan to make this happen and marinate on general ideas on how to accomplish this.
2017-06-05 15606, 2017
zas
+1
2017-06-05 15611, 2017
ruaok
k, seems we're in agreement.
2017-06-05 15611, 2017
Quesito
+1
2017-06-05 15615, 2017
CatQuest
-500 to paying to improve service for regular users
2017-06-05 15629, 2017
Sophist-UK
I guess I don't have a problem for a standard service which is free and people paying for a better service. But it has to be equal for all free users.
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
ruaok
so, zas: your priorities: spam, backups and then ws/2.5
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
yvanzo
+1 to API keys
2017-06-05 15651, 2017
zas
CatQuest: "regular users" are mostly abusers today
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
ruaok
CatQuest: no one EVER suggested that.
2017-06-05 15658, 2017
CatQuest
wat, no
2017-06-05 15610, 2017
CatQuest
I'm a regualr users. that's the sort of "regualr" i'm talkngi aobut
2017-06-05 15614, 2017
zas
the idea is to have better control on the ws to provide a better service for all
2017-06-05 15615, 2017
ruaok
just to be clear: WE ARE NOT PROPOSING SHUTTING DOWN OUR FREE WS!
2017-06-05 15622, 2017
reosarevok
Sophist-UK: except SothoTalKer!
2017-06-05 15623, 2017
CatQuest
no one said that
2017-06-05 15634, 2017
SothoTalKer
grumpf
2017-06-05 15644, 2017
ruaok
ok, just getting noisy now.
2017-06-05 15649, 2017
ruaok
Freso: back to you for the close.
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
CatQuest
I mean "random people" not like "amazon and universal and whatever"
2017-06-05 15653, 2017
Sophist-UK
Abusers get a MUCH worse rate limit (which could be 1 call every millenia).
but this was about explicitly *picard* ws accesses
2017-06-05 15600, 2017
boneskull joined the channel
2017-06-05 15613, 2017
CatQuest
"We're working to add a paid option to our Web Service for commercial users "
2017-06-05 15614, 2017
CatQuest
no problem, since they are paying for it
2017-06-05 15621, 2017
yvanzo
CatQuest: that was for higher rate limit, not regular one.
2017-06-05 15626, 2017
reosarevok
I mean, as long as the normal access doesn't become worse, I see no reason not to let people pay if they want to
2017-06-05 15634, 2017
Freso
ruaok: Is the (summarised) result of the survey public?
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
CatQuest
yea
2017-06-05 15647, 2017
reosarevok
It's stupid that we basically force them to set their own replicated server for it if we can avoid it
2017-06-05 15653, 2017
Sophist-UK
zas: Are you sure kong is only json?
2017-06-05 15659, 2017
CatQuest
the thing i that the drop to go form not worse to "prioritisng paying people" is sooo soo little
2017-06-05 15633, 2017
SothoTalKer
it could be two different ws instances :)
2017-06-05 15645, 2017
reosarevok
CatQuest: we get shit all money from that in the large scheme of things, so there's no point prioritising them
2017-06-05 15601, 2017
CatQuest
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
2017-06-05 15602, 2017
Sophist-UK
As I read it, Kong is simply transparent HTTP proxy. You add headers or post data with the authentication key and it checks that before routing the request and passing the response back.
2017-06-05 15620, 2017
CatQuest
anywa if i missunderstood anything I profusly appologise
2017-06-05 15638, 2017
yvanzo
CatQuest: It should help to provide a better rate limit for everyone in the end.
2017-06-05 15616, 2017
Freso
reosarevok: If we have 100 reqs/second and paying users get 10 reqs/second vs. regular ones at 1 req/second, that still means that we can *either* serve 10 paid ones or 100 regular ones (or somewhere in between). As soon as paid user #11 steps in, what happens?
2017-06-05 15630, 2017
CatQuest notes that there is like 2 people commenting on that blog post and one is asking for more detail about stuff and eccoing my own concerns
2017-06-05 15643, 2017
Freso
Esp. if we believe that the income from these users is "peanuts".
2017-06-05 15647, 2017
reosarevok
CatQuest: there's a survey link in the post, which is where I assume most of the feedback went
2017-06-05 15624, 2017
CatQuest
oh I didn't see tha,t i appologise
2017-06-05 15611, 2017
Freso
(If the income from paying users is enough to set up a /ws/ server dedicated to those users, so it's a ~0 sum game for us, then sure, no problem with me.)
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
reosarevok
Freso: if the service is overloaded, then I'd expect to lower the service for everyone as close to 1 as needed - of course, the whole idea is that the service should very rarely be overloaded, but eh
even though NG is fai lwith using imperial measurements >_>
2017-06-05 15605, 2017
CatQuest
I mean wtf kinda scientific thingy uses non-emtric :/
2017-06-05 15620, 2017
Freso
reosarevok: But if it isn't overloaded, then there's no need to put artificial restrictions on non-paid users either.
2017-06-05 15647, 2017
reosarevok
well I'm assuming we want to keep *some* restriction to filter out abuse
2017-06-05 15600, 2017
reosarevok
I'd also be happy to lift the restrictions to "as much as it can take"
2017-06-05 15602, 2017
CatQuest
what if abusers start paying?
2017-06-05 15614, 2017
SothoTalKer
i am perfectly fine with a 1 second delay between requests
2017-06-05 15615, 2017
reosarevok
CatQuest: then they have their own API key and they're easy to locate and block :p
2017-06-05 15616, 2017
CatQuest
(hey it's spam and adds right?people actulaly pay fpr that)
2017-06-05 15623, 2017
SothoTalKer
for me as a free user
2017-06-05 15637, 2017
Freso
reosarevok: Sure. But as I understand it, the Twitter-style rate limiting is exactly so that the limit can dynamically scale with the current load.
2017-06-05 15601, 2017
reosarevok
SothoTalKer: so am I, but we know some Picard users aren't. Not sure why tbh, you literally don't have enough time to check you're not messing it up if you go at 1r/s anyway
2017-06-05 15619, 2017
reosarevok
Freso: oh I see, I have no idea how that one works :)
2017-06-05 15603, 2017
CatQuest
i dislike the idea of regular users like me and freso and reo and drsaunders and hibiscus and majorlurker and random newbie and whomever having the "option" to Pay to suddenly be ableot hit mb wit 10/s instead 1/s like everyone else
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
Zialus has quit
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
CatQuest
because then it becomes unfair and people with money will gai nan advantage. and then you'll inevitably end up with this conversation:
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
CatQuest
"aarrg mb is soo slow"
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
CatQuest
"meh, I just pay X$"
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
CatQuest
".."
2017-06-05 15622, 2017
CatQuest
note:I (probably, as I live in one of the richest/most expensive countries in the world) have the financial ability t o*do* just this.
2017-06-05 15633, 2017
CatQuest
i don't want that ability
2017-06-05 15634, 2017
Sophist-UK
I think what Freso is saying is that paid users should get priority instead of or as well as a higher rate limit.
2017-06-05 15641, 2017
Freso
My issue is that 1) if we're not overloaded, making free users able to query less than paid ones is artifical, 2) if we *are* overloaded, people will be able to pay to get a larger share of the "commons" resource.
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
ZarkBit joined the channel
2017-06-05 15657, 2017
Zialus joined the channel
2017-06-05 15620, 2017
CatQuest agrees with freso
2017-06-05 15640, 2017
Sophist-UK
Perhaps paid users get only twice the rate limit, but also get priority when capacity is constrained.
2017-06-05 15646, 2017
CatQuest
WHY!
2017-06-05 15647, 2017
CatQuest
not
2017-06-05 15651, 2017
CatQuest
-t
2017-06-05 15656, 2017
Freso
I *would* be okay if it worked kind of like a crowd-funding. The people who want better access chime in to get a dedicated server running (ie., the sum of their paying covers hardware, bandwidth, sysop time, etc.).
2017-06-05 15657, 2017
Sophist-UK
Non-paying users get more 503s
2017-06-05 15614, 2017
CatQuest
that leads to "I am having this bug/isse/" "pay to get it fixed"
2017-06-05 15616, 2017
Sophist-UK
Paying users get both more calls and a better service level.
2017-06-05 15620, 2017
CatQuest
wich amittedly is already a n idea
2017-06-05 15626, 2017
CatQuest
but then it becomes the defcto
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
CatQuest
why?!
2017-06-05 15639, 2017
CatQuest
no
2017-06-05 15657, 2017
CatQuest
that's even worse
2017-06-05 15603, 2017
reosarevok
CatQuest: well I'm having this bug - pay to get it fixed would be pretty great :p
2017-06-05 15607, 2017
Freso
(MetaBrainz would facilitate the crowd-funding of this less-crowded server, but this could actually be done now, outside of MetaBrainz, if someone wanted to.)
2017-06-05 15611, 2017
CatQuest
reosarevok: true :D
2017-06-05 15635, 2017
reosarevok
Or rather "if you want to pay a separate, non-MB-core dev for this, go ahead, all our devs are too busy with serious issues at the moment"
2017-06-05 15636, 2017
Freso
CatQuest: People can already pay to get an issue fixed, if they want to.
2017-06-05 15639, 2017
CatQuest
reosarevok: but you cna pay with chocolate too :D
2017-06-05 15652, 2017
Sophist-UK
Let's not forget that most developers will be using MB to make money for themselves rather than on an altruistic basis.
2017-06-05 15654, 2017
CatQuest
yea yea. i was more
2017-06-05 15602, 2017
CatQuest
it was more if that was like "the only way to get it fixed"
2017-06-05 15606, 2017
Freso
Maybe not to MetaBrainz, but they could ask any random developer to make a PR and see it through to being merged in.
2017-06-05 15607, 2017
CatQuest
sorry being pessimistic just then
2017-06-05 15626, 2017
CatQuest
Freso: yes reo said it
2017-06-05 15645, 2017
Freso
I was busy typing, so I didn't see it until after sending.
2017-06-05 15651, 2017
CatQuest
right.
2017-06-05 15610, 2017
CatQuest
I was also typing and also trying ot point out that the meaning i had wasn't generical bugpaying
2017-06-05 15621, 2017
CatQuest
but as a (defualt) system
2017-06-05 15630, 2017
reosarevok
Freso: that's also not a bad idea (the separate server)
2017-06-05 15631, 2017
CatQuest
not that I think that's gonig ot happen, really
2017-06-05 15643, 2017
reosarevok
I mean, right now we can throw in separate servers for anyone, right?
2017-06-05 15645, 2017
CatQuest
like a mirror?
2017-06-05 15650, 2017
CatQuest
:D
2017-06-05 15656, 2017
reosarevok
So even if a customer wants a dedicated ws server, "ok pay the cost, you get it" :p
2017-06-05 15659, 2017
reosarevok
er. supporter
2017-06-05 15600, 2017
CatQuest
we need more mirrors. weused oth avethose, Y not have more
2017-06-05 15617, 2017
Freso
reosarevok: Yeah, I don't think it's a bad idea either. It means that they'll pay 1:1 for the service they get, without using "commons" resources.
2017-06-05 15617, 2017
CatQuest has absolutely no issue with that idea :D
