OSM's future. Was: Re: [Openstreetmap] OSM Performance is terrible
steve at asklater.com
Thu Feb 2 11:34:35 GMT 2006
* @ 02/02/06 09:39:10 AM noodles at earth.li wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:29:57AM +0000, SteveC wrote:
> > I and other people here have been quietly looking at _sustainable_ ways
> > of getting OSM fast and reliable hosting. Let's look at OSM right now.
> > It runs on 5 computers. www, tile, db, backup and dev. All of these
> > machines are hosted at the university I went to and worked at. Past
> > tense.
> > They are for lack of a better word, borrowed. Apart from dev
> > which is Nicks. The hosting is also borrowed and the machines sit in an
> > office being noisy and annoying people. Given that I'm not there any
> > more, questions are starting to arise about these machines.
> > Even at 5 OK-spec machines with excellent JANET hosting, it's not that
> > fast. So we probably need another 3-5 excellent machines. And these
> > machies, for the most part, need to be physically close to each other
> > because of the interplay of the database, tile creation and the applet.
> > The type of bandwidth we're using is huge. The tile server ships a lot
> > of data around, as does www. Commercial hosting would probably run in
> > to hundreds of pounds a month.
> I think you'll have more luck with offers if you can provide hard
tile does about 50 Gb a month, from looking at it's logs. www is harder
to estimate but it'd be similar. That's what they're doing today, it's
increasing with time and I'd guess that if it suddenly becomes more
usable then usage will also go up.
> What spec are the machines currently involved?
And none of these machines are OSM's
> What bandwidth is currently being shifted to the outside world (ie not
> between machines)? Are there graphs anywhere publically viewable?
But it doesn't give good bandwidth indications. Memory utilisation is
there, they're all underspecced.
SteveC steve at asklater.com http://www.asklater.com/steve/
More information about the talk