Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Move mirrorbrain to services node #351

Open
rgaudin opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 2 comments
Open

Move mirrorbrain to services node #351

rgaudin opened this issue Jan 15, 2025 · 2 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@rgaudin
Copy link
Member

rgaudin commented Jan 15, 2025

Currently mirrobrain (MB) is running on the storage node which implies:

  • any load (cpu, mem) to the MB load-balancer affects storage node
  • any I/O induced by MB (postgres database queries) affects storage node
  • any bandwidth consumed by MB (numerous small queries mostly: redirects to mirrors and MB-specific endpoints like btih, torrent, magnet, metalink)
  • should storage node (ie. master mirror) be unavailable for some reason, the whole download.kiwix.org is down while all mirrors are probably still up and ready

It would thus be better for performances and reliability to have the services node host the download.kiwix.org mirrorbrain.

@rgaudin rgaudin added the enhancement New feature or request label Jan 15, 2025
@benoit74
Copy link
Collaborator

I think all this comes down to the question of whether it is possible to have mirrorbrain operate without access to "real" files. This has been discussed in the HA discussions, and still needs to be checked AFAIK. If the conclusion is positive, I agree it would be positive to move MB to another node AND have an active or passive backup instance.

@rgaudin
Copy link
Member Author

rgaudin commented Jan 16, 2025

Sorry I forgot to mention that this ticket is a follow-up of that discussion and it looks like it should be OK although it needs to be tested.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants