Hello, we had this discussion in the past. Could we get a XAPI-instance[1] on one of our servers? I would like to use it for my Query-to-map project[2]. For other people this service is also usefull. In the moment the XAPI is so slow (2 kbit/s) that my script is out-of-service.
I want to create a tool that shows the street names of all streets in a bbox. Every paper city map has such a list, so it seems usefull. My first, basic step in this direction is the script "streetlist"[3]. (It use gis database on cassini table "plane_osm_roads". ) Than all entries in this list should be link to Query-to-map, so that the user could see the streets in the map. For this I would also need a running XAPI.
Because cassini had too few hard drive space the right place for XAPI would be IMO on Ptolemy. Who could decide this? Saper?
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
Greetings Kolossos
[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Xapi [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map [3]http://cassini.toolserver.org/~kolossos/streetlist/
XAPI currently requires about 400Gb disk space, FYI.
80n
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 11:04 PM, Tim Alder tim.alder@s2002.tu-chemnitz.dewrote:
Hello, we had this discussion in the past. Could we get a XAPI-instance[1] on one of our servers? I would like to use it for my Query-to-map project[2]. For other people this service is also usefull. In the moment the XAPI is so slow (2 kbit/s) that my script is out-of-service.
I want to create a tool that shows the street names of all streets in a bbox. Every paper city map has such a list, so it seems usefull. My first, basic step in this direction is the script "streetlist"[3]. (It use gis database on cassini table "plane_osm_roads". ) Than all entries in this list should be link to Query-to-map, so that the user could see the streets in the map. For this I would also need a running XAPI.
Because cassini had too few hard drive space the right place for XAPI would be IMO on Ptolemy. Who could decide this? Saper?
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
Greetings Kolossos
[1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Xapi [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Query-to-map [3]http://cassini.toolserver.org/~kolossos/streetlist/http://cassini.toolserver.org/%7Ekolossos/streetlist/
Maps-l mailing list Maps-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/maps-l
Hello, we had this discussion in the past. Could we get a XAPI-instance[1] on one of our servers? I would like to use it for my Query-to-map project[2]. For other people this service is also usefull. In the moment the XAPI is so slow (2 kbit/s) that my script is out-of-service.
I understand that there are numerous issues with XAPI software (being that slow, using lots of resources, etc.) therefore it should be classified as "experimental". We should definitely watch for the progress.
Ptolemy is still importing OSM data right now. We need to find out how to tune the database properly and what our space/speed requirements are.
Do you think you could use normal OSM API (instead of XAPI) for your projects?
Who could decide this? Saper?
It's for us to decide, the only real problem is to assess how production-ready XAPI is. We need to remember that Ptolemy is going to be the WMF production box.
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
Maybe have a copy of the OSM data for the Tools? Atm. Cassini only has a Postgis-DB, no real OSM-DB, and as far as i understood the concerns about ptolemy beeing a production box, cassini won't get any db-access to it.
Peter
Dnia 05.10.2009 Peter Körner napisał:
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
Maybe have a copy of the OSM data for the Tools?
Ptolemy is importing full planet.osm for a week already. We're looking at what's wrong with the import.
Previously it failed after only 2 days of import.
XAPI is a very high performance solution and actually uses less resources than the normal API. It is also quite stable.
It's current speed is a consequence of the the fact that there is only one server taking all of the load. It is regularly overloaded.
A dedicated service for Wikipedia use would really help make it faster for everyone.
Since it is new to the Wikipedia environment it's fine to classify it as experimental for the time being - but it provides useful functionality that the normal API does not have and is necessary for applications such as Query-to-Map.
Etienne
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Marcin Cieslak saper@saper.info wrote:
Hello, we had this discussion in the past. Could we get a XAPI-instance[1] on one of our servers? I would like to use it for my Query-to-map project[2]. For other people this service is also usefull. In the moment the XAPI is so slow (2 kbit/s) that my script is out-of-service.
I understand that there are numerous issues with XAPI software (being that slow, using lots of resources, etc.) therefore it should be classified as "experimental". We should definitely watch for the progress.
Ptolemy is still importing OSM data right now. We need to find out how to tune the database properly and what our space/speed requirements are.
Do you think you could use normal OSM API (instead of XAPI) for your projects?
Who could decide this? Saper?
It's for us to decide, the only real problem is to assess how production-ready XAPI is. We need to remember that Ptolemy is going to be the WMF production box.
Other question, could cassini get more hard drive space? How usefull would it be? The concept of the the three servers usage is now other than on the beginning.
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
-- << Marcin Cieslak // saper@saper.info >>
Maps-l mailing list Maps-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/maps-l
XAPI has real nice functionallty. I.e. if you want to know the path of a long river or a street, you can get it simple and fast via XAPI, also if this object has more than one way. With OSM API instead you need to download ALL datas in a bbox and filter than and the bbox-size is very limited. So I could NOT work with the normal OSM-API for Query-to-map or something else.
The XAPI runs for a long time very well, so the software seems ok und we should give it a chance. If it makes too much problems we can stop the experiment each time. I know that the highest priority project part is to get the OSM-maps into Wikipedia, so if XAPI installation would be a real problem for the live system, we should stop it. (Only an idea: Perhaps XAPI could run only on one core and reduce so the risk for the stability of the whole system. )
If we would have enough harddrive space we could run XAPI on cassini instead of ptolemy, there we could also try to program the XAPI functionality with Postgis on an optimize database layout. (For my application I don't need timestamp and editor for each node, so we can perhaps reduce the space requirements.) Other maps need perhaps also alternative database layouts and so need alternative layouts. More space we could also use to save tile for lower zoom levels of our experimental maps, etc.
Greetings Kolossos
Marcin Cieslak schrieb:
Do you think you could use normal OSM API (instead of XAPI) for your projects?
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 9:57 PM, Tim Alder tim.alder@s2002.tu-chemnitz.dewrote:
XAPI has real nice functionallty. I.e. if you want to know the path of a long river or a street, you can get it simple and fast via XAPI, also if this object has more than one way. With OSM API instead you need to download ALL datas in a bbox and filter than and the bbox-size is very limited. So I could NOT work with the normal OSM-API for Query-to-map or something else.
The XAPI runs for a long time very well, so the software seems ok und we should give it a chance. If it makes too much problems we can stop the experiment each time. I know that the highest priority project part is to get the OSM-maps into Wikipedia, so if XAPI installation would be a real problem for the live system, we should stop it. (Only an idea: Perhaps XAPI could run only on one core and reduce so the risk for the stability of the whole system. )
If we would have enough harddrive space we could run XAPI on cassini instead of ptolemy, there we could also try to program the XAPI functionality with Postgis on an optimize database layout. (For my application I don't need timestamp and editor for each node, so we can perhaps reduce the space requirements.)
I suspect a Postgis version of XAPI would be slower, but I have no hard evidence of this.
It would be very easy to eliminate unneeded tags from a Wikipedia specific version of XAPI. The attributes user, timestamp, changeset and version are probably all unnecessary. And tags such as created_by, tiger:* and other import meta-data could be suppressed.
80n
Other maps need perhaps also alternative database layouts and so need alternative layouts. More space we could also use to save tile for lower zoom levels of our experimental maps, etc.
Greetings Kolossos
Marcin Cieslak schrieb:
Do you think you could use normal OSM API (instead of XAPI) for your
projects?
I don't know - what do you plan to use the extra space for?
Maps-l mailing list Maps-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/maps-l