[Tilesathome] Display problem of names - New approach

[Matthias Julius]

Sebastian Spaeth <sebastian at sspaeth.de> writes:

> Matthias Julius wrote:
>> Yes, I think this would be a good thing in any case.  And splitting by
>> layer should be relatively trivial.  Especially for transparent layers
>> since a server for those does not need to worry about the oceantiles
>> stuff.
>
> Agreed. (We just need servers and admins maintaining those :-) )

Yes, especially servers.  I suspect there are some people here (myself
included) who would be willing to act as admin if they were given a
server.  The good thing is that hosting the maplint layer should have
a lot lower requirements compared to hosting all of tah.  That might
open up some opportunities.  Can you do a du -s on the maplint
storage?

>
>> server.tah should still act as primary upload server and it can then
>> hand off some layers to secondary servers like maplint.tah which
>> should only accept uploads from the primary server.  Those secondary
>> servers can be fairly dumb.  They just need to accept uploads from the
>> primary, put the files in the right spot and serve tiles.  They don't
>> even need a database.
>> 
>> This all should not be too complicated to implement.
>
> agreed on (nearly) all points. Given that our upload bandwidth is
> similar to our download bandwidth (or so it seems), it would even be
> nicer if the client could upload layers directly to different URLs. If
> the main server has to accept all uploads and transfers the stuff to a
> secondary server itself, this would mean a doubling of our network usage.
> Or wouldn't it?

Not really.  The main server doesn't have to serve those tiles
anymore.  It then depends on the usage of that layer whether handing
it off actually requires more bandwidth.

According to the munin graphs for tah there is almost 4 times as much
outgoing traffic compared to the incoming traffic.  And I assume that
the outgoing traffic is mostly tile serving and the incoming traffic
mostly tile uploads.  Or are there other things running on that box?
If not, you would save 3/4 of outgoing traffic if tah would hand all
tilesets to another box.

I would prefer to keep those things out of the client.  This keeps the
client simple and we don't need to worry about propagating config
changes when a layer moves to a different server.  Also, when a single
server handles all uploads it can more easily keep track of the render
queue and the secondary servers don't need to mess with user
authentication.

Matthias