New maintainer?

[dormando]

Hi,

I've clearly not been super good at keeping perlbal's patch submissions
and releases up to date. Would anyone be interested in taking lead on it?

The only real annoyance to keep in mind is that MogileFS depends on it, so
care and integration testing should be done for any major work. MogileFS
still gets some fairly heavy usage in the wild.

Thanks,
-Dormando

[Gerhard Gonter]

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 9:17 PM, dormando <dorm...@rydia.net> wrote:
> [...] MogileFS still gets some fairly heavy usage in the wild.

What do you mean with "still"? Is there something to replace MogileFS
or that should/could be used instead?

GG

[dormando]

Well.. mostly mild surprise that something hasn't fully displaced it.
There's Ceph and Swift (from openstack) and such, as well as the
prevalence of cloud storage. They don't all do quite the same things
though.

[Eric Wong]

Some MogileFS instances are "too big to fail (or migrate)" :)

The other thing is MogileFS is really simple (IMHO) for a small group to
handle; big, shiny, corporate Open Source projects put me off...

About Perlbal: what non-MogileFS users are these days?
I can help on the MogileFS-side using any plain-text mailing list
including this one.

But my involvement will be limited since I'm completely uncomfortable
with corporate-sponsored things like GitHub and GoogleCode being
involved with infrastructure APIs (bug-trackers, pull-request messaging,
etc...)

[Ask Bjørn Hansen]

> On Dec 14, 2014, at 22:25, Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> wrote:
>
> About Perlbal: what non-MogileFS users are these days?

I was wondering that, too. Probably a bunch of legacy stuff, but I think server resources have grown enough in the last years that the typical use cases in the past have gone away (optimize resource use for applications where you can only do a handful of simultaneous requests per server).


Ask

[dormando]

>
> > On Dec 14, 2014, at 22:25, Eric Wong <e...@80x24.org> wrote:
> >
> > About Perlbal: what non-MogileFS users are these days?
>
> I was wondering that, too. Probably a bunch of legacy stuff, but I think server resources have grown enough in the last years that the typical use cases in the past have gone away (optimize resource use for applications where you can only do a handful of simultaneous requests per server).
>

I asked on twitter the other day and a few folks responded saying they
were still using it here or there. Unknown if there's some sort of silent
majority.

[Aaron Trevena]

Could be, you install it and forget.

It's still the nicest option for a lightweight simple reverse proxy
especially with it's reproxying support. It's especially nice for
cheap virtual machine servers - I've had it running for years without
thinking about it on mine.

A.

--
Aaron J Trevena, BSc Hons
http://www.aarontrevena.co.uk
LAMP System Integration, Development and Consulting