#metabrainz

regular rate limits would still be open as normal.

CatQuest: you can setup your own server to get faster speeds too ;)

hmm

yes the "paying for (improved) service"

I don't lik that

Not so sure about Picard Pro

🙅

Nor me. Just throwing it into the mix.

It will allow devs to move to json from xml, and ease the transition to ws/3

there was a blog post circa 2013 or so that talked about higher rate limits that were paid and people LOVED the idea.

well this is 2017 and apparently people don't.

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.

regardless, we dont have to make fine grained decisions on this now.

we can definitely shift to a json ws3 but for the paid part maybe we can put up a survey/blog

I think we should marinate on the transition--but that it is a good direction to move into

Sophist-UK: we have other ways to pay the bills.

how much faster would be the "faster" be? And what about me doing my own script, will i get an api key, too? :D

Quesito: that. I think in general we all agree that moving to more control is good.

No SothoTalKer, you get it slower, as always

i mena if the "faster" wastrivila then.. but still

reosarevok: <3

Anyway.

The "paying to improve service" can be discussed later.

SothoTalKer: you get nothing ;)

+1 to api keys

for next time i just use another nick so you don't recognize me :p

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.

+1

k, seems we're in agreement.

+1

-500 to paying to improve service for regular users

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.

so, zas: your priorities: spam, backups and then ws/2.5

+1 to API keys

CatQuest: "regular users" are mostly abusers today

CatQuest: no one EVER suggested that.

wat, no

I'm a regualr users. that's the sort of "regualr" i'm talkngi aobut

the idea is to have better control on the ws to provide a better service for all

just to be clear: WE ARE NOT PROPOSING SHUTTING DOWN OUR FREE WS!

Sophist-UK: except SothoTalKer!

no one said that

grumpf

ok, just getting noisy now.

Freso: back to you for the close.

I mean "random people" not like "amazon and universal and whatever"

Abusers get a MUCH worse rate limit (which could be 1 call every millenia).

Well. Not much to say, I think.

Thanks for your time!

ttfn

</BANG>

and abusers can, yea what Sophist-UK said :D

so, how much faster :D

the blog post I mentioned: https://blog.musicbrainz.org/2012/04/09/please-...

only 5 years ago.

sigh.

but this was about explicitly *picard* ws accesses

"We're working to add a paid option to our Web Service for commercial users "

no problem, since they are paying for it

CatQuest: that was for higher rate limit, not regular one.

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

ruaok: Is the (summarised) result of the survey public?

yea

It's stupid that we basically force them to set their own replicated server for it if we can avoid it

zas: Are you sure kong is only json?

the thing i that the drop to go form not worse to "prioritisng paying people" is sooo soo little

it could be two different ws instances :)

CatQuest: we get shit all money from that in the large scheme of things, so there's no point prioritising them

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

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.

anywa if i missunderstood anything I profusly appologise

CatQuest: It should help to provide a better rate limit for everyone in the end.

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?

Esp. if we believe that the income from these users is "peanuts".

CatQuest: there's a survey link in the post, which is where I assume most of the feedback went

oh I didn't see tha,t i appologise

(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.)

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

anyway I'm looking at this amazing notosaur that was found and preserved amazingly: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017...

even though NG is fai lwith using imperial measurements >_>

I mean wtf kinda scientific thingy uses non-emtric :/

reosarevok: But if it isn't overloaded, then there's no need to put artificial restrictions on non-paid users either.

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"

what if abusers start paying?

i am perfectly fine with a 1 second delay between requests

CatQuest: then they have their own API key and they're easy to locate and block :p

(hey it's spam and adds right?people actulaly pay fpr that)

for me as a free user

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.

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 :)

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

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

I think what Freso is saying is that paid users should get priority instead of or as well as a higher rate limit.

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.

Perhaps paid users get only twice the rate limit, but also get priority when capacity is constrained.

WHY!

not

-t

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.).

Non-paying users get more 503s

that leads to "I am having this bug/isse/" "pay to get it fixed"

Paying users get both more calls and a better service level.

wich amittedly is already a n idea

but then it becomes the defcto

why?!

no

that's even worse

CatQuest: well I'm having this bug - pay to get it fixed would be pretty great :p

(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.)

reosarevok: true :D

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"

CatQuest: People can already pay to get an issue fixed, if they want to.

reosarevok: but you cna pay with chocolate too :D

Let's not forget that most developers will be using MB to make money for themselves rather than on an altruistic basis.

yea yea. i was more

it was more if that was like "the only way to get it fixed"

Maybe not to MetaBrainz, but they could ask any random developer to make a PR and see it through to being merged in.

sorry being pessimistic just then

Freso: yes reo said it

I was busy typing, so I didn't see it until after sending.

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

Freso: that's also not a bad idea (the separate server)

not that I think that's gonig ot happen, really

I mean, right now we can throw in separate servers for anyone, right?

like a mirror?

:D

So even if a customer wants a dedicated ws server, "ok pay the cost, you get it" :p

er. supporter

we need more mirrors. weused oth avethose, Y not have more

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.

reosarevok: Yeah.

+1 freso