Andy,
And what I can tell you is that people in OSM (I mean admins here)
are very supportive and open to changes.
I'm glad to hear that! Many people say they have a different
experience, but we try to be helpful.
Well, I don't know about other people, but I got everything I needed
(and
On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 09:32:30PM -0400, Jason Remillard wrote:
Hi,
schema). This would allow the site to scale more incrementally, and
potentially scale to larger loads than putting all of our eggs into
two monster servers. For the money we planning on spending on the big
server, we could
On 21 May 2013 02:32, Jason Remillard remillard.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
The server that we are planning on purchasing is monster. Very
complicated and expensive. I am concerned that this might not be the
best way to go.
Indeed, it might not be the best way to go, and any thoughts and
Jason,
You're not at all wrong about the issues with the server design.
This is something that's been well known and understood for several years:
As the project grows, the cost of scaling on a single system will
not scale accordingly.
What I mean by that is, that it's not a linerar cost to
Serge Wroclawski wrote:
So why doesn't this happen? Frankly, because I think the
project doesn't have anyone who can act in the kind of
technical leadership role this would require.
Define can.
The project has plenty of people capable of doing this.
But IME the main barrier between capable
Hi,
On 05/21/13 16:08, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
So why doesn't this happen? Frankly, because I think the project
doesn't have anyone who can act in the kind of technical leadership
role this would require.
Knee-jerk call for authority? Never worked well.
It's not something anyone can do,
I normally stay out of the tech bike-shedding discussions, however I do
want to point out
- we are aeons away from requiring and running cutting/bleeding edge
hardware (and having to pay for such)
- in the grand scheme of things we are not spending a lot of money on
hardware (on the one hand
Can someone add more information about when and how the OWG meets? The wiki
page is pretty bare on how one might help:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Operations_Working_Group
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote:
I normally stay out of the tech bike-shedding
On 05/21/2013 04:08 PM, Serge Wroclawski wrote:
This is why the org needs a structural change, to give someone the
authority and resources to oversee projects like this.
Without this, the OWG is stuck ordering more hardware.
Reluctant +1 from me though I am sure this is not a popular view (we
On 21 May 2013 18:50, Paweł Paprota ppa...@fastmail.fm wrote:
And what I can tell you is that people in OSM (I mean admins here) are very
supportive and open to changes.
I'm glad to hear that! Many people say they have a different
experience, but we try to be helpful.
Sadly, I
simply don't
Hi Andy,
Thank you for the detailed reply.
I have no issues with how the money is being handled, nor spending
this kind of money on hardware.
OSM growth is pretty amazing right now. Over the lifetime of this
server we should be planning for at least 15x/20x more traffic. If
this server can
Hi,
I could not find a discussion on the new database server.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/New_server_and_fund_raising_drive_2013
The server that we are planning on purchasing is monster. Very
complicated and expensive. I am concerned that this might not be the
best way to go.
We have a
12 matches
Mail list logo
