Dirk Stöcker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, 9 Dec 2008, Matthias Julius wrote: > >>> OK - I wasn't aware that the ROMA servers were being used for other >>> purposes. That's why I asked first. If that's the case, then we should >>> leave the db alone. >>> >>> I've been trying to speed up the response time of my server without having >>> to purchase additional hardware - guess maybe I'll have to look at some >>> additional drives. >> >> I don't think there is anything wrong with [EMAIL PROTECTED] dedicated ROMA >> servers >> as long it is clear to a potential user that its data is incomplete >> and meant to be for [EMAIL PROTECTED] only. >> >> They probably should run behind their own load balancer called >> roma.tah.openstreetmap.org or so. And they should include a comment >> in their data about the fact. > > I would not encourage such special handling in cases where the data is so > equal to the main API (i.e. I would have no objections for converted data > in other formats). > > One of the problems is that future is not really predictable and it is > much better to have an open interface compared to a short-term speedup. > It is already a bad idea that created_by is skipped in XAPI. Don't make > the same problems with ROMA.
One certainly has to be careful. And the filter rules would need to be documented. > > If on the other hand a standard interface can be established, so that > e.g. the server is faster when a "strip-xxx" request is done, but a > non-stripped request can be delivered nevertheless (as default) I would > say this could be a fine solution. The goal here is to make the database faster by limiting the amount of data that is stored in there. So if a server only supports the "strip-xxx" request and no regular request it can do no harm. Matthias _______________________________________________ Tilesathome mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tilesathome
