[OSM-dev] your new sysadmins

Tom Hughes tom at compton.nu
Wed Aug 8 08:57:54 BST 2007


In message <20070808071753.GE7927 at spaeth.lan>
        spaetz <osm at sspaeth.de> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 07, 2007 at 06:59:58PM +0100, Tom Hughes wrote:
>
>> DNS changed - not sure how long it will take for Bytemark to start
>> announcing it, but hopefully it won't be too long.
>
> I'll wait a couple of days until it has propagated and set up the host
> then, thank you.

It actually started working shortly after I sent that last night.

>> Long term, does it actually make sense to move dev and make the
>> current dev server a t at h server? Is is actually up to the job even
>> if everything else is removed?
>
>> In other words might it make more sense to move the t at h
>> functionality elsewhere and leave that as the dev box.
>
> Good question :-). And honestly I don't know what to answer here. What
> seems clear is that dev and t at h on one machine doesn't seem to work
> well (one being a production server and one non-critical,
> experimental). Currently Frederik Ramm tries to get hold of db2 as a
> "new" dev server, AFAIK, so this box could focus on producing
> beautiful tiles.

I'm not sure what he's doing to try and get hold of it, as he hasn't
spoken to me about it ;-)

That was actually one plan I was considering - obviously it would need
more disk space. I'm using it for a couple of things right now, but it
may well be a possibility.

What is the limiting factor for the T at H server currently? Is it CPU time
or memory bandwidth or disk I/O bandwidth?

> Nick Hill said there is money for new RAM and he wanted to install
> it (possibly during 11 Aug meeting), he also talked about replaceing
> motherboard and CPU at the same time as it apparently had been
> flakey at times (I couldn't replicate that yet, though). However, I
> have nothing heard of that since then. Are there any plans for that?
> More RAM especially would be nice for caching data base tabes and
> tile files.

This is for dev I take it? Like I say moving it to db2 or something
might make more sense, and that has 4Gb of RAM at present.

> Unless we plan to dramatically improve our services (selectable
> transparent overlays with POIs anyone?), I think we can work along
> quite happily for a while on this box (although a multi core would be
> nice for a server running a db and a webserver). It is certainly busy
> (avg load of 2), disk rotate all the time, and there is no memory
> left, but it manages... In case we plan to move the SOTM stuff too, we
> could also get rid of a running postgres, and a running mongrel (some
> ruby server stuff?) which currently consume RAM.

Well moving to T at H to db2, which is dual core with 4Gb of RAM, would
mean we could leave all those ancillary things on dev?

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/




More information about the dev mailing list