Replies: 3 comments 2 replies
-
I'm okay with that. Also, I can check if we can run check.searx.space more often. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@ononoki1 Related to #165 (comment), please get familiar with this new rule. Thank you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@dalf @return42 @mrpaulblack @tiekoetter @ononoki1 You can now add website to be tracked for their uptime without adding them to the public list: https://github.com/searxng/searx-instances-uptime/blob/master/.upptimerc-custom.yml This is useful for enforcing the rule that I wrote in this GitHub discussion. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Currently when the owner of an instance ask to add back an instance that got removed due to a bad uptime, we add back the instance right away and we give him a final second chance.
The issue is that sometimes the instance is added but fail again to keep a good uptime.
In order to avoid this kind of issue I propose to wait 1 week before adding back the instance and during this 1 week the instance should keep an uptime of 95% or 8 hours max of downtime during 1 week.
What do you think? Is this a good idea? Should we instead ask for 90% of uptime during 1 week because 95% is too strict?
Also if this rule is added, I'll have to setup a list of websites that can be manually added on searx-instances-uptime repository.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions