Would it not be better to think about new services that could be offered by OSM rather than putting a lot of effort into fixing something that is not broken?
Suggestions would be WMS, WFS, i18n, custom layer support, or some sort of support where the OSM DB can be integrated well with a GIS. Not all of this would have to run off the writable database... Ludwig 2008/5/25 Dave Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Joachim Zobel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > Am Donnerstag, den 22.05.2008, 00:06 +0100 schrieb Tom Hughes: > >> > Writing Apache modules in C is hard, and I don't think using mod_cpp > >> > will make it much easier. Doing Apache modules in Perl (mod_perl has > >> API > >> > access including filters) is a lot easier. > >> > >> Ye gads no. We want to keep the memory footprint under some sort of > >> control so mod_perl is a non-starter. > > > > Everybody seems obsessed with low memory footprint. Why? Memory is > > cheap, and we are not planning an embedded system. What is the number of > > concurrent requests we need to handle? > > > > > > http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/rails1.openstreetmap-memory.html > > http://munin.openstreetmap.org/openstreetmap/rails2.openstreetmap-memory.html > > with a hundred new users a day. > > So sure, memory is cheap, but not having to buy it is cheaper, > especially as the system scales. > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dev
