OSM's future. Was: Re: [Openstreetmap] OSM Performance is terrible

[Mikel Maron]

This is actually being discussed, for handling loads on WMS tile servers generally
http://mappinghacks.com/projects/distributed-wms-cache.txt

----- Original Message ----
From: topro at gmx.de
To: openstreetmap at vr.ucl.ac.uk
Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:10:25 AM
Subject: Re: OSM's future. Was: Re: [Openstreetmap] OSM Performance is terrible

Hi there,  
  
what Do you think of a distributed architecture for OSM. Let anyone who  
is willing to support OSM run a bittorrent-style server for OSM.  
Servers are syncing p2p and anyone who accesses OSM gets redirected to a 
server around the world, i.e. randomly or in a more dedicated way. 
 
If only 5% of the users would be willing to do so server load would be 
reduced to a value that can be handled by any hardware and bandwidth. And 
OSM power/bandwidth would grow with it's users.  
  
Just an idea, what do you think.  
  
Tobi  
   
> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---   
> Von: Christopher Schmidt <crschmidt at crschmidt.net>   
> An: SteveC <steve at asklater.com>   
> Kopie: openstreetmap at vr.ucl.ac.uk   
> Betreff: Re: OSM's future. Was: Re: [Openstreetmap] OSM Performance is   
> terrible   
> Datum: Thu, 2 Feb 2006 07:47:18 -0500   
>    
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2006 at 12:28:54PM +0000, SteveC wrote:   
> > * @ 02/02/06 12:24:24 PM crschmidt at crschmidt.net wrote:   
> > > 50GB a month is very little in the US: That type of bandwidth can   
be   
> >    
> > /me nods   
> >    
> > but multiply that per machine and the stats graphs.   
>    
> Even still, I'm currently dealing with 500GB/month in traffic - much of   
> it bittorrent, so I'm nowhere near informative with OSM's model, I get   
> that - and my hosts don't bug me.   
>    
>    
> > > bought for cheap. I'm currently paying $100/month for a dedicated   
> server   
> > > with 1000GB/month bandwidth, just for comparison, and that's with a   
> dedicated   
> > > server inluded, so presumably at least as good for colo.   
> >    
> > I'd thought about that, but figured donated equipment at a university   
> > was going to be easier.   
>    
> I think that it may be time to move OSM into a next stage. Especially   
> given the OS's attitude towards mapping projects, as you described in a   
> previous email, I think that looking to the people who may depend on   
> them - universities - to host things for free is risky. I can't   
imagine,   
> for example, wikipedia being hosted by a University. I know Google was   
> to start with, but they had to move out eventually, and with the number   
> of contributors OSM has, maybe this is a sign that it's time.   
>    
> In other words, in my opinion, it may be time to take this effort, look   
> for some funding from various sources to cover recurring monthly costs,   
> and make the leap into a 'real' space with service level agreements and   
> so on. Taking the server down to do maint is something that is becoming   
> increasingly more troublesome as OSM gets a constant string of edits --   
> any time the server is down is time these things can't be updated. 6   
> months from now, moving the machines again when they outgrow another   
> university's goodwill, will be even more trouble than it might be now.   
>    
> OSM has significant needs beyond a level that can be accomodated   
without   
> thought. These needs may be best met by someplace that is willing to   
> sign a contract to maintain a level of service, something that very few   
> people offering 'free' hosting will be willing to do.   
>    
> Then again, I'm mostly an observer, so I may be wrong. But I'd love to   
> support OSM in this way if I can.    
>    
> > > In my experience, bandwidth in Europe and the UK seems to be more   
> > > expensive. I know that OSM is a mostly UK project, but maybe a US   
> based   
> > > host could provide more bang for the buck, even with slightly   
higher   
> > > ping times or whatever. I'm not sure that bandwidth is the issue   
here,   
> > > of course, but if "50GB" is a lot in the current setup, I think the   
> > > current setup might not be optimal.   
> >    
> > That 50Gb is all (well, a lot) on the fly generated images, not   
static   
> > content. Hence the load doesn't look like a static machine.   
>    
> Load is definitely something I understand -- I don't question that the   
> hardware you mention is needed, but assuming all the machines are in   
the   
> same rackspace, the amount of processing is irrelevant to the actual   
> bandwidth.   
>    
> In other words, bandwidth should be a target number that can be met   
> irrelevant of the hardware that's running behind the switch, unless I'm   
> misunderstanding.   
>    
> > > Is there any way to get OSM set up as a non-profit organization for   
> tax   
> > > purposes? I'd be happy to donate some money in the near future   
towards   
> a   
> > > new equipment drive, but would like it even more if I could write   
it   
> > > down as a tax deduction.   
> >    
> > I'm working on it :-)   
>    
> Cool.   
>    
> I'd love to see OSM do a pledge drive. Decide what hardware is needed   
to   
> make a workable system of machines, then create a wikipedia-like pledge   
> drive. Given the attitude of "we'd love to help, but we can't", perhaps   
> a monetary donation would be a more fitting request from users of the   
OS   
> data. (Anonymous to the greatest extent allowable by law...)   
>    
> --    
> Christopher Schmidt   
> Web Developer   
>    
> _______________________________________________   
> Openstreetmap mailing list   
> Openstreetmap at vr.ucl.ac.uk   
> http://bat.vr.ucl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstreetmap   
>    
   

-- 
DSL-Aktion wegen großer Nachfrage bis 28.2.2006 verlängert:
GMX DSL-Flatrate 1 Jahr kostenlos* http://www.gmx.net/de/go/dsl

_______________________________________________
Openstreetmap mailing list
Openstreetmap at vr.ucl.ac.uk
http://bat.vr.ucl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstreetmap