+-le 04.12.2008 12:42:09 -0500, Milenko a dit : |> -----Original Message----- |> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:tilesathome- |> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mathieu Arnold |> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:24 AM |> To: 'TilesAtHome' |> Subject: Re: [Tilesathome] Two new ROMA... |> |> +-le 04.12.2008 10:12:09 -0500, Milenko a dit : |> | OK - the map.fcgi that I have I just downloaded from florians server, |> so |> | that version does need to be updated. |> |> Yes, that should end up somewhere in the svn :-) |> |> | Yes I see that. It's returning results in under a second or two at |> the |> | moment. Most of the current tiles look empty or pretty sparse |> though. |> | We'll see what happens when missingtiles runs next. |> |> The thing is that if possible, the clients that were hitting your |> server |> directly would be really better served by the load balancer, so that |> the load |> balancer does not set your server as being down because the concurrency |> limit |> is reached on your end. (You could also do as I did, set the |> concurrency |> around 20 and let the LB do the job.) |> |> -- |> Mathieu Arnold | | Could you drop the LB to something more like 8 instead of 10? Those extra | two requests really slow things down.
It was at 9, it's at 8 now. | Do you have any idea what causes the large groups on requests all at one | time? I'm seeing a pattern of no new requests for a minute or so and then | 4-7 new requests all within a second or two. Is this by design on the LB? | If so, spreading these requests out would probably make all of the ROMA | servers more efficient. Well, it's a bit hard to debug things with not much informations :-) It may be because your server is marked down, thus no hit, and comes up, thus you getting assigned what's left in the queue you can get :-) -- Mathieu Arnold _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
