-Original Message-
From: dev-boun...@openstreetmap.org [mailto:dev-
boun...@openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Mathieu Arnold
Sent: Friday, February 06, 2009 6:41 AM
To: marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com
Cc: Dev; talk@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [OSM-dev] [OSM-talk] donating read-only
On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 12:29:44PM +0100, marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
It does not?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ROMA
does not mention that it does not implement the full API.
btw, is it 0.6 -capable already?
It does not - ROMA does only support the map call as thats the only
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:16:28 +0100, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
Florian Lohoff wrote:
API 0.7 should contain a referral as LDAP does - So a client could
connect to a cluster of read-only copies and once you write to it you
get a referral to the master database. Synchronization is
Milenko mile...@king-nerd.com writes:
As far as I know, the ROMA servers return data as close as possible to
the main API. They should be no more than 3-5 minutes behind the main
API. Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I very well could be!).
But they still don't implement the whole API.
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Russ Nelson wrote:
It seems to work for them. I think it's a good idea for us.
while Marcus was suggesting clustering third party servers which is not
something we will be doing as far as I'm concerned.
How much of the DB
Erik Johansson wrote:
How much of the DB load comes from the read only part of the API, and
what if you remove the area limit on the map call?
If I remove the area limit then somebody will do a massive query that
will suck up all the memory on the machine and everything will die.
That limit
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:31:10 +0100, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
marcus.wolsc...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 15:16:28 +0100, Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
Florian Lohoff wrote:
API 0.7 should contain a referral as LDAP does - So a client could
connect to
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Tom Hughes wrote:
Yeah, it really is that simple, which is why us simple minded idiots
that run the server are still doing it all in memory.
There are at least 3 known alternative implementations that run
semi-realtime :) So yeah keeping it in rails while there are
On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 11:25:45 +0100, Mathieu Arnold m...@mat.cc wrote:
+--On 6 février 2009 11:12:29 +0100 Stefan de Konink ste...@konink.de
wrote:
| Mathieu Arnold wrote:
| +--On 6 février 2009 10:23:22 +0100 Jonas Krückel (John07)
| o...@jonas-krueckel.de wrote:
| | I think you know about
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Tom Hughes wrote:
This is only partly about rails. Even if you take rails out of the
equation you still need to keep substantial amount of data in memory
in order to know which objects to fetch.
The substantial amount of memory you are talking about is the
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Erik Johansson wrote:
How much of the DB load comes from the read only part of the API, and
what if you remove the area limit on the map call?
If I remove the area limit then somebody will do a massive query that
will suck
Hi,
Marcus Wolschon wrote:
So...why is it that you hold the result-set of the nodes-query in memory
again?
While not mandated by the XML structure, the XML document we return is
usually sorted - nodes, ways, relations, each in ascending ID order.
Because a way or relation may require
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:20 PM, Marcus Wolschon mar...@wolschon.biz wrote:
On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:35 PM, Tom Hughes t...@compton.nu wrote:
Erik Johansson wrote:
How much of the DB load comes from the read only part of the API, and
what if you remove the area limit on the map call?
If I
Hi,
Stefan de Konink wrote:
Is this also the case for non-full bbox requests?
We do not make a distinction between full/non-full bbox requests, there
is only one type and that gives you all nodes that belong to ways of
which at least one node lies in the bbox.
Or is it actually calculated
14 matches
Mail list logo
