[OSM-talk] A Swedish national server for OSM
osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk
Tue Jul 29 22:16:39 BST 2008
On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 7:57 PM, Inge Wallin <inge at lysator.liu.se> wrote:
> In the rather large thread "Actually using OpenStreetMap and the usability of
> the current maps" I got to understand a few things that I didn't grasp
> So to make a long story short, I have decided to check the viability of
> setting up a Swedish tile server + slippy map and some other services. To do
> that I am applying for some money from the Swedish Internet Society that has
> grants for such things.
> But to be able to write the application, I need to understand the size of the
> task. Things like:
> - How long does it take to render a typical tile set? Will a single machine
> be able to render all the tiles for Sweden, for instance? What's the size of
> the current render farm for the mapnik map on openstreetmap.org?
> - How much bandwidth will it use?
> - How difficult is it to set up a working server? I'm fairly skilled in
> deployment, but I have never worked with mapnik, nor osmarender or
> I am aware that the questions are fuzzy, but all data will be much
For the cyclemap we prerender the tiles and upload them to a cheap
"dumb" webhost. The coverage of the cyclemap is quite large, but
typically only goes as far down as zoom 13 (or zoom 14 for the UK), we
do selected cities at higher zoom.
We render on a box with the cheapest quad core processor available
(Core2 Q6600), and 8GB RAM -- this does approximately 1 million tiles
in about 5 hours (and includes contours -- the standard rendering is
2-3 times faster to render). Our main bottleneck is then uploading
these tiles to the webhost.
In July the cyclemap used approximately 200GB of bandwidth serving
tiles -- but it is quite popular and the tile sizes are actually quite
In terms of setup, if you're doing an on-demand modtile solution, then
it relatively easy.. just follow the instructions on the wiki -- give
it a try on a VM first to test out the process on the distro that you
want to use. Relative is obviously relative... but it's easier than
More information about the talk