[Tilesathome] Using RAM-drive for ROMA temp tables

[Dirk Stöcker]

On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Matthias Julius wrote:

>> OK - I wasn't aware that the ROMA servers were being used for other
>> purposes.  That's why I asked first.  If that's the case, then we should
>> leave the db alone.
>>
>> I've been trying to speed up the response time of my server without having
>> to purchase additional hardware - guess maybe I'll have to look at some
>> additional drives.
>
> I don't think there is anything wrong with T at H dedicated ROMA servers
> as long it is clear to a potential user that its data is incomplete
> and meant to be for T at H only.
>
> They probably should run behind their own load balancer called
> roma.tah.openstreetmap.org or so.  And they should include a comment
> in their data about the fact.

I would not encourage such special handling in cases where the data is so 
equal to the main API (i.e. I would have no objections for converted data 
in other formats).

One of the problems is that future is not really predictable and it is 
much better to have an open interface compared to a short-term speedup.
It is already a bad idea that created_by is skipped in XAPI. Don't make 
the same problems with ROMA.

If on the other hand a standard interface can be established, so that 
e.g. the server is faster when a "strip-xxx" request is done, but a 
non-stripped request can be delivered nevertheless (as default) I would 
say this could be a fine solution.

Ciao
-- 
http://www.dstoecker.eu/ (PGP key available)