[Osmf-talk] Budget for 2016

john whelan jwhelan0112 at gmail.com
Sun May 1 21:17:39 UTC 2016

The other really radical idea would be to use a cloud service rather than
our own hardware.

In the past I was second level support for over a hundred database servers
and some were quite large.  We consolidated a fair number, costs on the
Unix side were much higher than on the Windows side both for hardware and
support.  Microsoft MOM helped reliability enormously on both the Windows
and Unix side.  We found that by maximizing memory we could consolidate
quite a few databases on a single server as they were often oversized.
Typically the database servers ran about 3% CPU utilization.

The other thing to think about is where the servers are located. The UK has
a well deserved reputation for being expensive for computers.  Have a look
at the prices on newegg.com and compare them to European prices.  Given
that OSM is much more worldwide than it used to be should members living
outside the UK be expected to pay 20% VAT to keep the UK going?  There are
locations in the states where the Internet backbone runs and electricity
prices are cheap, well half the cost of the UK, and a third the cost of
Germany, and don't forget that the electricity consumed by a Windows server
over three years will cost more than the server, and that's in the US.  In
the UK its probably nearer two years.  The Unix servers are more expensive,
they use more electricity on average per unit of computing (There are more
Windows boxes out there so the drivers and power saving devices etc get
optimized for Windows.).

Cheerio John

On 1 May 2016 at 16:25, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> John,
> On 05/01/2016 09:59 PM, john whelan wrote:
> > Could OSM be formed into a charity, that might stretch the donations a
> > little further.
> It is something we've been looking at but it would also increase
> administration overhead on a few fronts (governance, accounting). It
> certainly is an option for the future.
> > I'd be inclined to suggest a membership drive for OSMF, we could do with
> > more cash to whatever we do with it.
> I really, really hope that in the future we will come to a point where
> "being a corporate OSMF member" is the natural thing to do (and the
> expected thing) for businesses who either make or save money through
> OSM. There's no legal responsibility but I'd like it to become so common
> that someone publicly using OSM but not participating becomes the "odd
> one out". This will only be possible if the community helps, by pointing
> out to businesses that an OSMF membership is a good idea.
> If we manage to do that, then I'm convinced we'll have a solid financial
> basis to operate on, even without additional fund raisers.
> That's why I am really eager to finalize the corporate membership so
> that we have something we can work with, instead of something where
> everyone says "this is work in progress so let's hold back on actively
> signing up members until we've decided".
> I'd like to see individual membership increase too, but not for
> financial reasons - the amount of money we get from individuals is
> relatively small and their most valuable contribution is their knowledge
> anyway. But having more individual members makes it more likely that
> many different viewpoints are represented in OSMF.
> Bye
> Frederik
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20160501/317688a9/attachment.html>

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list