regular rate limits would still be open as normal.
Freso isn't sure he likes the sound of that... :/ Also moves from being "donations only" to "paying for (improved) service"...
samj1912
CatQuest: you can setup your own server to get faster speeds too ;)
Quesito
hmm
CatQuest
yes the "paying for (improved) service"
I don't lik that
samj1912
Not so sure about Picard Pro
CatQuest
🙅
Sophist-UK
Nor me. Just throwing it into the mix.
zas
It will allow devs to move to json from xml, and ease the transition to ws/3
ruaok
there was a blog post circa 2013 or so that talked about higher rate limits that were paid and people LOVED the idea.
CatQuest
well this is 2017 and apparently people don't.
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.
ruaok
regardless, we dont have to make fine grained decisions on this now.
samj1912
we can definitely shift to a json ws3 but for the paid part maybe we can put up a survey/blog
Quesito
I think we should marinate on the transition--but that it is a good direction to move into
ruaok
Sophist-UK: we have other ways to pay the bills.
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
ruaok
Quesito: that. I think in general we all agree that moving to more control is good.
reosarevok
No SothoTalKer, you get it slower, as always
CatQuest
i mena if the "faster" wastrivila then.. but still
ruaok
reosarevok: <3
Freso
Anyway.
The "paying to improve service" can be discussed later.
Quesito
SothoTalKer: you get nothing ;)
Freso
+1 to API keys either way.
CatQuest
+1 to api keys
SothoTalKer
for next time i just use another nick so you don't recognize me :p
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.
zas
+1
ruaok
k, seems we're in agreement.
Quesito
+1
CatQuest
-500 to paying to improve service for regular users
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.
ruaok
so, zas: your priorities: spam, backups and then ws/2.5
yvanzo
+1 to API keys
zas
CatQuest: "regular users" are mostly abusers today
ruaok
CatQuest: no one EVER suggested that.
CatQuest
wat, no
I'm a regualr users. that's the sort of "regualr" i'm talkngi aobut
zas
the idea is to have better control on the ws to provide a better service for all
ruaok
just to be clear: WE ARE NOT PROPOSING SHUTTING DOWN OUR FREE WS!
reosarevok
Sophist-UK: except SothoTalKer!
CatQuest
no one said that
SothoTalKer
grumpf
ruaok
ok, just getting noisy now.
Freso: back to you for the close.
CatQuest
I mean "random people" not like "amazon and universal and whatever"
Sophist-UK
Abusers get a MUCH worse rate limit (which could be 1 call every millenia).
but this was about explicitly *picard* ws accesses
boneskull joined the channel
"We're working to add a paid option to our Web Service for commercial users "
no problem, since they are paying for it
yvanzo
CatQuest: that was for higher rate limit, not regular one.
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
Freso
ruaok: Is the (summarised) result of the survey public?
CatQuest
yea
reosarevok
It's stupid that we basically force them to set their own replicated server for it if we can avoid it
Sophist-UK
zas: Are you sure kong is only json?
CatQuest
the thing i that the drop to go form not worse to "prioritisng paying people" is sooo soo little
SothoTalKer
it could be two different ws instances :)
reosarevok
CatQuest: we get shit all money from that in the large scheme of things, so there's no point prioritising them
CatQuest
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
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.
CatQuest
anywa if i missunderstood anything I profusly appologise
yvanzo
CatQuest: It should help to provide a better rate limit for everyone in the end.
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?
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
Esp. if we believe that the income from these users is "peanuts".
reosarevok
CatQuest: there's a survey link in the post, which is where I assume most of the feedback went
CatQuest
oh I didn't see tha,t i appologise
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.)
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 >_>
I mean wtf kinda scientific thingy uses non-emtric :/
Freso
reosarevok: But if it isn't overloaded, then there's no need to put artificial restrictions on non-paid users either.
reosarevok
well I'm assuming we want to keep *some* restriction to filter out abuse
I'd also be happy to lift the restrictions to "as much as it can take"
CatQuest
what if abusers start paying?
SothoTalKer
i am perfectly fine with a 1 second delay between requests
reosarevok
CatQuest: then they have their own API key and they're easy to locate and block :p
CatQuest
(hey it's spam and adds right?people actulaly pay fpr that)
SothoTalKer
for me as a free user
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.
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
Freso: oh I see, I have no idea how that one works :)
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
Zialus has quit
because then it becomes unfair and people with money will gai nan advantage. and then you'll inevitably end up with this conversation:
"aarrg mb is soo slow"
"meh, I just pay X$"
".."
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.
i don't want that ability
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.
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.
ZarkBit joined the channel
Zialus joined the channel
CatQuest agrees with freso
Sophist-UK
Perhaps paid users get only twice the rate limit, but also get priority when capacity is constrained.
CatQuest
WHY!
not
-t
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.).
Sophist-UK
Non-paying users get more 503s
CatQuest
that leads to "I am having this bug/isse/" "pay to get it fixed"
Sophist-UK
Paying users get both more calls and a better service level.
CatQuest
wich amittedly is already a n idea
but then it becomes the defcto
why?!
no
that's even worse
reosarevok
CatQuest: well I'm having this bug - pay to get it fixed would be pretty great :p
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.)
CatQuest
reosarevok: true :D
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"
Freso
CatQuest: People can already pay to get an issue fixed, if they want to.
CatQuest
reosarevok: but you cna pay with chocolate too :D
Sophist-UK
Let's not forget that most developers will be using MB to make money for themselves rather than on an altruistic basis.
CatQuest
yea yea. i was more
it was more if that was like "the only way to get it fixed"
Freso
Maybe not to MetaBrainz, but they could ask any random developer to make a PR and see it through to being merged in.
CatQuest
sorry being pessimistic just then
Freso: yes reo said it
Freso
I was busy typing, so I didn't see it until after sending.
CatQuest
right.
I was also typing and also trying ot point out that the meaning i had wasn't generical bugpaying
but as a (defualt) system
reosarevok
Freso: that's also not a bad idea (the separate server)
CatQuest
not that I think that's gonig ot happen, really
reosarevok
I mean, right now we can throw in separate servers for anyone, right?
CatQuest
like a mirror?
:D
reosarevok
So even if a customer wants a dedicated ws server, "ok pay the cost, you get it" :p
er. supporter
CatQuest
we need more mirrors. weused oth avethose, Y not have more
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.
CatQuest has absolutely no issue with that idea :D