-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The original coastline processing from way back ran on a virtual server that ran on hardware from 2008 or before that was also doing a lot of other things and that took about half a day to generate the shapefiles (including the error files)
It's no wonder your much newer dedicated hardware is a lot faster. On 01/31/2012 12:39 AM, Paul Norman wrote: >>>>> 2. It took my server about one hour from the start of >>>>> extracting the coastline data to creating the shapefiles. >>>>> My understanding was that this process took about a day. >>>>> I'm using a different route to extract coastline data than >>>>> osm2coast, could this account for the difference? >>> >>> A full coastline shapefile run (ie. both processed_p and >>> shoreline_300) takes a few hours to generate, generally. I have >>> no doubt that current hardware (cpu, ssd) can have a drastic >>> positive influence to get it to your 'one hour'. > I'm querying my pgsnapshot database - I think this accounts for > most of the differences. My server runs an AMD Phenom II 1090T x6 > with 6 7200 RPM drives in RAID10 > > - --- m.v.g., Cartinus -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPJ1/QAAoJEInLUvwrL2kIEdkH/10GAUuicF8BgVs17aJ3HB0B hj+hqcyt1hxae416/EpKdRpj2ZFXgm3R24Q8XaOZoeadPAL9Se8V/NBGiQUf9y+4 dDawTz0ZQgXJe4ooC8xdXUjaZz/weUH8ugXg8RIzOLqzdJvVoDHVxRa1Etfjv3b/ e8hM1paTh6z+6QzXwNXcpBtvF6xQUqOrJSnHneH6ZVZ8k3lSXJyTpzQybT/0RYe+ 6QSU0B5/8UdwBTA835zDKTQLUFr8M+8RKvlhMM0ejO42KPV3ZPiVjGV9eemUFmuy 9k985fZZw/4Xr6nBhKKbNxjTTPFUeeJLBET/VAda8DJOxtBf6G5oQ3EU0LdEuXU= =1Q5r -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/dev
