Clone the zp-forks/traccar-geocoder repo here


⏺ Good — single sequential build running (PID 8710, 107GB RSS, --no-parallel-admin). Both Germany builds will complete on node 3. The parallel
  one already finished in /tmp/de-parallel/. The sequential one will finish in /tmp/de-sequential/.

  When the next Claude instance picks up, it should:
  1. Wait for the sequential Germany build to finish (it's been running ~12 min, probably another 10-15 min for the admin phase)
  2. Run /tmp/diff_admin /tmp/de-parallel /tmp/de-sequential to compare admin polygon counts
  3. If they match (or are very close), proceed to planet build
  4. If they differ significantly, investigate the ring stitching further

  The parallel Germany build took about 3 minutes. The sequential one will take ~20-30 minutes (the admin boundary phase is the bottleneck). The
  comparison will show whether the node-ID fix resolved the discrepancy.


We need to setup tailscale and connect to the immich github tailnet


For context, you are running in a debian docker container


Add bypass permissions mode as the default permission mode for claude, then we will restart hte session and resume from there


Alright, lets go. Continue with the previous task


We should also update the semantic comparison tool to evaluate that, even though the ways and addresses are different orders, that they are effectively the same between the two files


You have full access to node 2a and 2b as well as node 3. Node 2a and 2b create ephemeral sessions that need to be held open, or they will wipe the entire pod. They also require me to auth for you. If you want to do that now so you have an ssh session that is held open, we can do that


If you want access to node 2a and 2b do that now before I step away from my computer


Ah, we need to enable accept routes for the tailscale


These nodes are both cgrou constrained. 44 CPUs and 192GB RAM


You can only have one open connection to each node, it can't have multiple connections at the same time due to resource constraints


Node 3 is different, but you can use that for node 3 too


Focus on getting the node 2a and 2b connetions established first


Stepping away now, continue your work, feel free to use any nodes as you wish


makensure to keep committing even though you cant pusy


could we also run the initial baseline buiod before our changes on one continent and then save those results as a pure baseline for us to compare against


could we also run the initial baseline buiod before any of our changes on one continent and then save those results as a pure baseline for us to compare against


dont do everythint on node 3, you have the extra nodes to allow you to eo eequential processing


fix the admin polygon issue and also validate that yhe results are the same betqeen the original tool before we made any changes, qnd the new parallel version


are we able to alwo use those same heuristics? also, why do qe have extra ways, that dpesnt seem right


yes, leta make it match 100% across all sections


yes, pursue the last 28 and try mimic what osmium is doing


what would it take to make those differences the same too?


can you give me a full explanation of what the 3 differences will actually entail when using this data in the reverse geocoder?


save this report in a file in the repo and then run a parallel vs baseline test on the entirety of europe


make sure to check the aria2 logs not the file on disk


can you explain thw differences foe the extra and missing? why are we missing sone spexificiallt?


you have 2 hours from now until we lose access from this node


you shouod move to using node 2a or 2b within the next 1:30 and you shoule also kove the index outputs there, at least the baseline


node 3 will be offlije in a few minutee, however itll be back up afyer an indeterminite amount of time, so you can keeo.monitoring until it is avaioable again then continue afyer that


Alright, I would like you to test the version that should exactly match and fix the albanian areas. My main priority is maintaining parity with the original code, while of course making it significantly faster with the parallel iomprovements. Missing four areas in albania isn't ideal, that doesn't respresent an exact match with what we currently have for the current build process


You can try node .11 or .12 again and I can attempt to approve them


You need to keep the connection established permanently


These instances on nodes 1, 2a and 2b are ephemeral, they are totally destroyed after the ssh connection is dropped


You should use node 1 until node 3 comes back online, once it does, move back there as it has a much better CPU and much more memory available


I think Europe should work too, check with your measured stats


If not, you could try a smaller continent, it's not worth testing Germany again


You could specifically test albania to see if the issue areas are resolved?


Would it be possible to run the build on the node claude is running on instead?


You don't need to run this, we have node 3 back online


I am going to bed now, keep working through this. If Europe is a close enough match after the changes, then run a global comparison on node3. If it is not a close match, fix that and then do the global comparison.


I am going to bed now, keep working through this. If Europe is a close enough match after the changes, then run a global comparison on node3. If it is not a close match, fix that and then do the global comparison once it is fixed for Europe.


I am going to bed now, keep working through this. If Europe is a close enough match after the changes, then run a global comparison on node3. If it is not a close match, fix that and then do the global comparison once it is fixed for Europe. We are targetting 100% equality between baseline and the parallel builds, if not 100%, it should at least be equivalent without having any impact on the reverse geocoding output.


how long did the parallel version take, and how long is this baseline version taking?


what is the statud and what are you working towatds now?


atill feels ver slow for that size of file, this server is running on ssds, what is causing the spowdown?


could we write qll the files at once to increase parallisation of the dedupkication process?


how much faster is the writ8jg with our changes?


wouldthere bea perforkanxe impsct to doing the procesding thesaneway as osmium?


letsreimplement osmiums method, aimingto keep parralelism high to best use the available resources. Lets do this in a branch so thatwe can compare them easily afterwards.


Are we able to implement the other features we are missing from osmium in order to get the same count?


Check more often, don't wait so long and risk the machine sitting there doing nothing for a while


What is the average cpu usage in this phase?


Yes, add it. Also can we add timings for each section so that we can see how long each section takes, also it would be good to see how much cpu each step is using to ensure that we are fully utilising the system where possible


Why does index file writing take so long and what can we do to improve that section?


Take a look at S2 cells and index writing to see if there are any further optimisations we can make there


Lets try to make more imrovements on germany first before we run planet, and verify the files still match what we got before


Or at least, we should run the tests on Europe if we want a bigger test size, as it'll allow us to iterate faster


Inclue the cpu stats like you were before


What was the improvement vs the last round?


Run full planet after this to see how much better it is


What was the speedup vs the previous parallel build?


Did we always have 2544 extra boundaries or are those new from these optimisations?


Can you give me some examples of co-ordinates that would be in some of these extra boundaries? Can you run the baseline version of the server and our server against those coordinates and compare the actual output from the server for those? Do 5 examples and let me know what the differences are


Can you also do the same for some of the missing polygon areas?


Alright, this all looks great, lets chase some more performance improvements if you can identify some


Is there any way to improve the PBF IO, either by reducing the amount of passes or something else?


I think the biggest potential timesave now is the writing to disk. Could you do an investigation into whether there is any more work we could do there? 250 seconds for that seems like a huge amount


Can you also try running full planet with all the new code on node 2a to compare the runtime against node3?


This section appears to be entirely single threaded, is this not something we can improve?


It is only using a single core at 100% cpu right now


Which sections of the process are still single threaded? The one running for gtermany and planet right now are both single threaded


Where are you pulling those stats from, that is incorrect


No, the CPU usage figure is incorrect for the planet build


A huge amount of the write phase seems to be single threaded and CPU bound


We should investigate any way we can remove any sections that are single threaded and therefore CPU bound


Could you tell me what sections we have remove single-threaded limitations from, and what else we still need to do?


Yes, lets do that. Also, it would be good to look into S2 optimisation after that as it is the biggest other section right now


To be clear, we still want to be completely accurate compared to the baseline, so anything that compromises that isn't a tradeoff we want to make


Keep monitoring CPU during each phase to identify other places where we could optimise to run more parallel


Also, kill the current planet run as it will throw off our comparison numbers


Always keep me updated with what you are doing so I can keep track by looking back at this thread


what phase are we in now, as this is only 100% CPU usage


What downsides does not merging at all have?


Keep monitoring and find other sections that run as a single thread


What phase is running now, it's single threaded again


Keep monitoring and report after it's done


This phase appears to only utilise about 50% of the available CPU too


Tackle all three, I am heading to bed now so work on it autonomously


Make sure you are comitting after each fix


What is it doing  now which is single threaded?


It's in a single threaded section now, what is it?


once you are totally done with performance improvements i would like you to write unit, integration, e2e tests, whatever is neccesary to validate sll of this compilcsted code. we should try to incorporate as many of the strane edge csses as we csn into these tests. once we hsve axslid test suite, then i would like you to do a significant refsctor to clean up the code and follow best practices. however we should not sacrifice any of the speed improvements in order to achieve this. i wont be around for approvsl so plan and execute this all yourself just make sure to add git commits for everything. also copy this entire git repo to node3 as a backup until we can ger those conmits pushed safely to the remote.


we can also remove the sequentoal code now and make it always parallel


we can just remove the flag entirely as notjing uses this tool externally yet


should we break build_index.cpp out to seperate files rather than one huge monolith?


after this is complete, run a germany twst and then a full planet test, ensuring that we have maintained our speed improvements as well as maintained corectness


The OSM planet PBF won't be that much bigger than it was a couple of days ago, try it again


It is unlikely to be hot cache and there are no other processes on the server. It feels like there is a regression somewhere in the code that is affecting multiple aspects of the build


Can you give me a report of the index file sizes and total size for the planet? Is this the same between baseline and our new version?


What is supposed to be running, right now the box is idle. Always check every 30 seconds so you don't sit around for 10 minutes while nothing is happening


Create an SSH key on this machine and I will add it to my github account


Alright, can you now compare the index file size between baseline and our parallel version, and tell me how large the overall index is for the planet?


With this data moving around, does the current API correctly handle this still?


Can you do an investigation into the strings.bin and make sure that we are correctly computing that? It seems extremely small in comparison, so I just want to ensure that we aren't missing things that should be there


Alright, this all looks great. What I would like you to do now is to compute the planet but in these different configurations. We want to see what size the index files are when we have admin only, street level and house number level detail. We also want those combinations for each continent as well as the whole planet. Is it possible to do this all in a single run of the planet or will this require multiple runs?


What exactly does "admin only" include, what level of detail do we get? Right now we use the cities500 extract from geonames for positioning, specifically we use cities500 + admin2codes + admin1codesascii. Is this new implementation of admin only significantly higher detail? Could we easily create a more accurate version of something similar in level to cities500?


Lets try to create something closely matching cities500 and generate that to see what the output size is


While that is running, could you experiment on compressing all the index files with something like zstd to see how well they compress for distribution?


Would it not make sense to compress the entirety of the folder rather than just single files at a time?


Is there anything we can do to speedup that process while still running -19?


Is there anything else we can do to reduce that cities file size further?


Strings being 201MB seems quite high just for city level information considering that cities500 presumably needs that same information


Would it be possible to generate these at multiple levels of max vertices to compare the difference in size? If possible it would then be great to compare them for accuracy, maybe even overlay them on a map so we can view the actual difference between them.


It's completely single threaded, so it will be slow


I would like to see the map first, could you host it on this machine and give me the URL with the tailscale IP?


Also can you test the compression to get the full numbers?


Also can you test the compression to get the full numbers? We should run it on all the required files


Some of the colours are really hard to see, could you make all of them thick lines like 500 is, but just different contrasting colours?


Would it make sense to do some kind of dynamic vertice reduction based on the polygons actual features? This may allow us to reduce the size while maintaining detail in the most complex boundaries. Brainstorm this and see what makes sense


What does the current implementation do, does it have any cap at all or is it exact boundaries?


Lets implement that as an option, but leave the default behaviour in as a possibility too. Could you also update the visualisation to include this, potentially with different values for the Epsilon to compare to the defaults?


What does these different values mean, are these for all boundaries or are they different boundaries for the different admin levels?


The per level epsilon visible levels in the viewer have different meter numbers, what does that mean?


The buttons to jump to locations now seem to be broken


The colours in the sidebar appear to be wrong. Make the baseline and pre-level eps the most promenant and contrasting


How large is the entire folder for the epsilon compressed files both before and after compression


Also check whether this simplify-epsilon change has added extra time to the build once it's complete


Would it be possible to add some way to customise the epsilon levels, we would like to target around 200MB compressed


Can you overlay these onto the map so we can see what they look like?


What are the physical distances used for the different scales?


Can you include the baseline version again too for comparison? Would it maybe even be possible to see what a version with no caps at all looked like, and what the file sizes were like for that?


On the visualisation Bayern and Deutscheland seem to be mixed and the polygons have an extremely weird shape, is this a glitch on the visualisation or is this a wider issue?


It seems that all of the other modes have this issue too in the viewer


Just add support to the viewer to use larger ints


I thought it was just the visualiser with this problem?


Will this have a substantial impact on memory usage?


Will this have a substantial impact on memory usage or size on disk?


What is the size difference for this new uncapped file?


Could you now generate the entire planet, with all four different levels, different continent splits like we did before, but with unrestricted polygons? Would it be possible to update the code to output different qualities of polygons too, the same way it does with the different countries now?


Could you now generate the entire planet, with all four different levels, different continent splits like we did before, but with unrestricted polygons? Would it be possible to update the code to output different qualities of polygons too, the same way it does with the different continents and detail levels now?


What qualities is it building this with?


And yes lets make it configurable by the UI


And yes lets make it configurable by the


And yes lets make it configurable by the CLI


Lets make sure to time this process too to figure out how much time it adds to the process


Which files are affected by these different qualities?


Lets not even hardlink it, lets just have a base directory with the base files, then the quality files go in subdirectories


Can you layout the full directory and file structure now if we ran with the different admin levels, the split continents & full planet as well as the varying quality levels?


Surely the polygons change depending on admin_only vs no_address vs full/


Surely we don't need all this polygon data for admin-only?


Yes, before we added this quality option though, were we including polygons we didn't need in the admin-only files?


Alright, the idea here is to avoid repeating files that are the same, as we will be storing all of these in S3 and then allowing users to select the options they want when they download them


Would it be possible for a user to have the entire planet downloaded at admin-only level, then have europe downloaded at street level?


This download structure looks good, it would also be nice for us to output a json file that details what options are available so that the client can render that for the user. This should include the on-disk size of the options so that the client can calculate and display that to the user


Make sure to time this new build so that we know how much time these new changes added


You just need to clean up the system memory to make sure that everything is clear, find out what is using up the swap and free it


Kill the build, clean up memory, then start again


I have a permanent SSH connection open that doesn't keep dropping, what are you doing to cause that


You did not reclaim the memry before starting the new build


Can you force the swap to drain or e what is still using it?


You can run commands with sudo, the password is the same as the one to login


I think you have a bunch of bash tasks running in the background, you should kill all of those because it's confusing things


Just remove all background tasks entirely and don't start a new job yet


I have restarted you because things were in a mess. Now, try again, connect to the server, stop all running tasks, clear swap


Yes, lets do it. As I said before, make sure you having timings set in the code and are monitoring these new aspects so we can see what it does to the overall build time and potentially optimise them. We want to build all the levels we spoke about before


Update the code to run all of the continent filtering and the other substeps in parallel, memory should not be a problem


What is running now with only 7 threads?


Can we increase the amount of threads being used during this phase?


This should adapt based on the amount of threads available


In order to better use the resources, if we are able to use all 32 cores for the filter threads, then we should do each continent sequentially but make sure to use all cores during each phase of the continent processing


Clear out some more space before we start to be sure


You have multiple background shells running again that are causing multiple jobs to run


It seems there is still a significant amount of single threaded work, one of those being right now


I thought we had already made this parallel previously


We aren't capped on memory, we have almost 100GB free right now


God fucking damnit claude, I said stop multiple times, the build was still running


Give me a breakdown fo all the files and configurations


Lets review the last run and see how long each section took


I am going to leave you running overnight and I want you to optimise the build process as much as possible. We should maintain the current output correctness and shouldn't remove any of the options we are running. Target everything that isn't currently running in parallel, there are quite a few steps that are still single threaded, especially with the final continents step. We should optimise that to run in parallel as well as anything else that is single threaded that can be reasonably optimised. Run the app and get timings and profile the CPU usage, make sure you are getting live usage from each stage not the average from the entire runtime of the application. After each optimisation step make a commit so it's easy to rollback a specific commit. While you work, keep a markdown file up-to-date with changes, results, etc so I can check on that when I return. Do not promt me for anything now that I am gone, make sure you work autonomously and don't stop working until I stop you or there are no more reasonable optimisations to make.


Just to add before I leave, as well looking at improvements for single threaded code, you can also look at ways to improve some of the multi-threaded code if it isn't fully utilising all the cores available optimally


Did you validate the changes against the index files before these changes?


Did we not run this with all of the options?


Did you not commit these changes, why are you popping the stash? Committing and pushing would be safer


Did we not run the unoptimised versionfirst?


I thought we ran the pre-optimization version first


At this stage, don't just make changes, verify with me first


Don't revert this change, instead we should actually investigate the physical difference as previously we thought it wouldn't be a problem. Blindly reverting the change is not a good idea, lets investigate first, then figure out where we go from there


Is there a way to ensure that the cell covering never misses part of the polygon, i.e. it will always be larger?


Actually, can you give an estimate performance difference from this?


There are quite a few situations where we run 28 threads to save 4 for other computation, however most of the time it seems those 4 threads are essentially idle. I think we could speed things up further by only reserving a single thread for other work


If we went with option 1, is there anything else we could do to optimise this?


Yes, lets go back to the original version. Then lets run a full pass and make sure the other files are still correct


Yes. have you done actually deep investigation of the other files to ensure that they are actually the same?


You already have a tool for this in the test folder I thought?


Is there any way we can make that deterministic without affecting performance?


Lets run a full validation pass, then commit that if it's good. Then could you please compute the full size of all the files with all the options enabled including continents


What other areas do we have that we could tackle for performance improvements? There still seem to be a good amount of single threaded areas


We should definitely write the quality variants in parallel. We should also investigate that dedup parallelization. Lets investigate how much it would take to reimplement the PBF reading to parallelise it. Worker thread count should definitely be bumped to system threads - 1. Implement each of these in simplicity order and commit after each change as well as validating the output is the same.


For worker threads, we don't need to test that after, just commit and implement the next fix


Maybe we should run the code and profile it to see what aspects aren't fully utilising the CPU


Is this build running with CPU profiling?


Once that finishes running, output it here too so I can see what phases are using what amount of CPU


We should monitor all the phases and the subphases, as much monitoring as possible so we can identify which sections of each phase cause slowdowns


Do we have enough information in the current build to get that kind of information?


Adding profiling into the binary itself seems like a good option


Make sure it includes stats from all of the threads it spawns, as we need total usage


CPU ticks aren't necessarily a reliable metric as the clock speed can change during processing


It hasn't stopped, it was still processing


I restarted you because you had a bunch of background tasks that kept coming back and getting reacted to outside of the main topic, lets try that again.


The build was not OOM killed, you killed it


Give me updates on the CPU usage for each phase as we progress through the process


Pass 1 and pass 2 appear to have the exact same cpu usage metrics, so I believe that the reporting is wrong for those sections


We should also include average memory usage during each phase in the analysis if possible, and fix cpu reporting for pass 1 and 2. Double check any others which look strange too.


Can you explain to me how you implemented the parallelism for the continents and why you took that approach?


Is it possible to process the largest polygons first in the list and then use all cores for a single continent at a time? Then we can write the file while the next continent processes


Is it possible to sort the polygons within the continent too by size? This would allow us to start on the largest polygons first, so they get the longest time to resolve (we don't end up waiting for them at the end)


How complex do we think this sorting will be?


Lets implement this then, commit it, then lets come back to the other possible optimisations and decide what we want to implement of those before testing


Yes we should do 1 for sure, then lets decide about the rest


Can you test what we have now, but also add more detailed profiling to the dedup section so we can see which section is limiting us?


A significant section of the continent pipeline seems to be single threaded, whatever is running right now


No, nothing is consuming the other cores, only a single core is active on the machine right now


What stage is runnign right at this moment


No, give me everything and the breakdown of the steps within the continents


Can you check all of the monitoring for this section as it seems wrong, the filter appears to me to be running entirely single threaded as only a single core is active and I only ever see a single process in htop


No, this is not correct. When I say that I only see a single thread active in htop, I mean all the other cores are completely inactive, nothing is using them at all


You can add debugging if that helps and run the process again


The build is still running, it has not crashed


Don't make any changes or kill any processes without my confirmation


the background writes do not consume the cpu, it just sits on 1 core the entire time


investigate and fix this problem, dont revert the async changes, just fiz why it is only using a single core. add debugging as needed and resolve the problem, commit and push everytime you make a relevant change. i am leaving now so work autonomously


to be very clear, when i was watcjing htop during the continent sections, the cpu was only using a single core the entire time, for many minutes


lets push all of this ans then run a final profile unless youve already done that. we can then see if there are any last areas to improve


and have we checked this against the baseline from before all of these changes wwre made to ensure nothing is missing/broken


we ran out of session usage, resume from where you were


do we have a full breakdown of the performance of each syep for the final build?


I think it would be good to look at phase 2 and figure out if there is anything we can do there to better utilise the CPU.


We can probably bail early once the pass 2 and 2b phases are complete, to avoid waiting for the entire build, as that is all we are optimising for right now


keep the cl3amup but revrrt the optimisation


lets investogate improving the osmium sude of thibgs, what steps can we take to do that


How much work would it be to re-write the PBF reading ourselves?


Before we start, is this our last dependency on osmium, or do we use it for other things still?


Alright, lets do it, you should write some tests before implementation that test the osmium parsing that can then be used to test that our own parsing gives the same results afterwards. Then once the full re-write is done we can run a full build and ensure that the output data is correct compared to our previous output before this change


Lets keep working on optimising the new code, make some optimisations and then run it to the end of pass 2b and then kill it to speed up feedback time


Would it be possible to store a buffer of chunks so that we have backpressure and only decompress new chunks when the processing has caught up?


Side note, you make me the author of commits with you as coauthor


We should really try to optimise the process to be faster than Osmium while still extracting all the stuff they do, then once we have achieved that, we can investigate further optimisations


How is 166 seonds worse than 180 seconds?


We should continue to work on improving pass 2 and 2b, the goal here was to significantly reduce the time taken for those phases. Right now we are using significantly more CPU but only matching the performance, or slightly beating it. We should be able to go a lot faster, so there must be some code that isn't optimal in here. Continue investigating improvements and only run up to the end of pass 2b in order to speed up the time taken to validate speed improvements


Pass 2 and 2B are still not really much faster, we should absolutely be able to make those faster with double the core utilisation like we have now


The node appears to be entirely unreachable, possibly a network issue, I will let you know when it's back


How was the disk cache warm after a reboot, it would be cold if anything


Lets print out the full detail of the timings, CPU and ram usage from that last run so we can analyse if there is anything else we can optimise


Lets try to optimise pass 2 and 2b further if possible, they are a significant amount of the time still


What are the next steps, pass 2b still seems to have a lot of work we could focus on?


Lets keep tackling 2b optimisations, there must be more savings there. Check the code for inefficiencies or optimisations we can make


Lets investigate that larger change to the index structure, however we should make sure it won't affect other aspects of the build process and slow those down


I thought we were going to re-write 2b to avoid the index random reads?


Is there nothing else we can improve there, ignoring memory access time, is the code as efficient as it can be?


Alright, lets leave it there then, however could you look at the continents stuff again with a fresh perspective? I think there is some time to be saved there still, it seems very slow and still seems to not use much CPU at all in this phase. Add more detailed debugging if you need and get accurate metrics


Search for improvements to the  europe continent section


Once this is done we should modify the compare_indexes script to be able to compare the filtered continents output and we should compare the output from the continents filtering to the original baseline before any of our optimisations. We should also do a deep inspection of the output to check that it looks actually correct and isn't missing anything that we would expect to be there. One way might be to run the europe PBF and then run planet and compare the full output of the europe PBF to the filtered output for europe of the planet pbf


So europe continent filter matches europe pbf full?


We should really use the country boundaries too, is that likely to significantly increase the amount of time processing takes?


Can you see the output ow or is that lost?


We should also make sure the baseline and the same extract or they could have different data. Also, we should investigate whether we can also use the country or continent boundaries for our seperation of europe


We should also make sure the baseline and the same extract or they could have different data. Also, we should investigate whether we can also use the country or continent boundaries for our filtering of continents


Finish running the comparison first though


Once this is done, we can test the boundary based approach and see how accurate that is and how much extra processing time it takes. We should validate all outputs from any tests we run


can we not just download polygons for the continents, or construct them from our countries?


the gosl is to get closer or mstch the europe pbf


do a deep comparison of both to see what is missing in our version as well as what is extra, that might give us more insihht into where the difference is coming from


downloas the latest europe and planet pbf now


How did you confirm it's a data freshness issue?


The files should be updated every day, so we should be able to get the new files for planet and euroep


Can you do validation then to make sure at least that all of the places that don't match in our filtered version are all just small way differences?


Can you give me a breakdown of all the files from the latest planet build with all the filter continents and different qualities?


Can you give a summary of the full layout, what all the directories are for, and what each file is for


Give me the europe continent in the different qualities


Why would we drop them, we shouldn't simplify so much that we are dropping polygons, surely?


We shouldn't keep the original vertices, we should just make sure to not simplify below 3 or 4 vertices


Lets try connecting to node 2b and run the full build there and see how long it takes on that node


Make sure to check the cgroup limits as it is a kube pod


Also just setup a ssh socket that holds the connection open permanently


These instances are ephemeral so if you ever drop the connection, everything gets wiped


We should always try to use aria2 for parallel downloads, but when we do that, we should make sure to monitor the aria2 output rather than disk for the download completion


We restarted the node to give it more resources, reconnect and then re-establish the new resources


Approved. We also deployed the kube PVC for the planet.pbf file, so that should be accessible now


Approved. We also deployed the kube PVC for the planet.pbf file, so that should be accessible now and accessible by http


You created the helm file, can you figure it out from that?


Are we utilising 79 cores for those, or did we hardcode 31 cores somewhere?


As for the memory thrashing, is there anything we can offload from memory onto disk during the process and then load back into memory afterwards to avoid thrashing?


Why do we need the entire PBF nmap in memory?


I think that 10s saved was before we moved to streaming, too


Did you actually ever clone the repository, is that folder actually a git repository?


I don't see an explicit cd in the command you're sending


Seems like we aren't thrashing memory now, but we are significantly underutilising the cores on the machine, can we optimise that more? Maybe better utilising the cores + skipping classification would be better overall?


I mean, node 2b is a significantly older machine, can you run the job there again and measure the RSS and CPU usage like we did before for those first phases?


Also could you use node 3 to validate that new build matches the baseline from before still?


How do you know that it is memory latency, I would expect that even if we have memory latency, we should still be able to ramp the cores up. Can we not prefetch to combat that?


If this happened it probably means the machine crashed and needs manually cleaning up to be used again


I don't think we needed to revert, these machines actually have a problem with their memory configuration and occasionally just hard crash, so I don't think this was an OOM situation


Run this new version on node 3 to see what the speed is lik


Run this new version on node 3 to see what the speed is like


Do you still happen to have an open containerssh session to a node, because it says one is running


Remmeber you can pull the planet.pbf from the local PVC http endpoint


We should investigate if there are any better ways to do this. Potentially we could offload from memory onto disk during the process, then reload quickly into memory for the next step as required? Have a think about that


Lets give it a try and see how well it works. Then test it on both node 3 and 2b


What do you think is the next approach? There must be something we can do to keep within the 190GB memory limit


If it's that bad we can probably kill it and work on another approach


Think about any other approaches we can have to increase the CPU utilisation on node 2b


Try connecting again and running that new approach on 2b


e are optimising pass 1, 2 and 2b, so if those are too slow, there is no point continuing the test.


We could also attempt to optimise this new approach before we revert, see if there are any improvements we can make here


Did we ever test producer consumer on node 2b?


Just test both at the same time to save time


Alright, are there further improvements we can make?


Lets do a full build and measure the total RSS required


The next thing we want to do is be able to create patch files so users can download the patch from one day to the next to catch up with the latest build


The next thing we want to do is be able to create patch files so users can download the patch from one day to the next to catch up with the latest build. Can you investigate the optimal way to do this, do builds with an old and new planet or continent file, then generate the patch and make sure it equals what we had when generating fresh?


We should come up with a patch system that works well with the changing indexes and such, if zstd patch doesn't do that, we should figure something custom out and test that


If we are going to do this in the builds, we should make sure that we aren't going to massively increase the build times


These patches are far too big, and changing the build process like this really isn't ideal either. Really I would want to be able to run the process each day, comparing the full output of today to the full output of yesterday, producing the patch files, then people could catch up multiple days by just applying patches in sequence. With this approach that wouldn't work. We could come up with a custom tool that produces small patches because it understands the format and can apply them sensibly, rather than using zstd patch


I am leaving now, so I am taking you out of plan mode, you can implement whatever you feel like as we can always revert later.


Sis t9u validate applying the patxh on top of the older file and then validating that the new patched file matches tbe file built feom sourcw?


tou verified that patched old = new? are all of these using the custom process you built?


other questions first, what is the cuerent atate of everything then?


I specifically said that the offset remapping and such wouldn't work because it would mean that you couldn't apply multiple patches in a row


Lets rethink this from the beginning. What I want is a system where we can produce small patch files nightly based on the previous days build. I want the user to be able to apply multiple of these in a row in order to be able to get an exact match compared to if they were to download the latest file directly. We should build our own tooling with our understanding of how the files work in order to be able to create these patch files, and also a tool to apply them. I do believe that the build producing ordered files and being deterministic about decisions it makes is important for this process, so we need to figure that out too. Come up with a plan for this and run it by me. The way we can validate this works is to take the europe continent, build the old file and buld the new file, then generate the patch by looking at both of them. Once we have that patch, we can apply the patch against the old file and validate that they exactly match the new file. Then, we should grab an even newer europe continent file and create a patch between that and the 2nd europe continent file, then we can apply both patches in sequence from the first file, and we can validate it still matches the third file.


keep going, feel free to make commits as chrckpoints


that is great, however i thjnk we can get this significantly smaller. lets work on that now


You should keep going on the optimisations for those two things. If zstd isn't working as expected, we can still use it to compress the patch files for download, but we could have our own code to actually restore and apply the patch over the file so that we can do custom handling and get the patches as small as possible


keep.optimising to get to the tqrget tou mwntioned before. i want this entire thing to be as small as possible, ideally <50MB per day if we can. we can probably download todays europe.pbf by now and then couoe actually do our tests against a single day rather than 4 or 5 days like we are now


lets do the further improvements and then do the testinf


lets do the further improvements and then do the testing. also give me a breakdown of the current atate of everything with the patching


Can you write up a markdown document, similar to the optimisation one, that details what we have currently done, what we have tried, what we are working on, etc and then we can keep referring to that and updating it as we go


Should we consider alternate approaches or are do we still have good leads right now? If ordering or index changes are a problem, we could consider changing the indexes to not be numerical and instead they could be a hash potentially? I am unsure how that would affect the actual server implementation though


How big is the geo_cells file and how much space is this fixed-size cell slot format going to consume?


What do you mean by sequential patching tests?


Can we run this for the planet and calculate the size of a 1 day diff?


Don't run the builds in parallel, they will thrash for memory


Yep, keep working until this is fixed and everything matches, then ideally we test a sequential patch like we did on europe


we should fix the planrt pstchong so thst all files matcj


I don't want these fallbacks, we should just fix the patching so that it works properly. There is no reason that I can see why we can't get the patching working.


Why are we still using zstd patch-from when I said we should build everything custom?


Remember we can test completely new concepts with europe before running full planet to speed up iteration. We only need to run full planet at the end to validate the same concepts work with that


There are historical planet pbf files avaialble from osmn


There are historical planet pbf files avaialble from osm


There are historical planet pbf files avaialble from osm, it seems the OSM planet extract updates weekly


There are historical planet pbf files avaialble from osm, it seems the OSM planet extract updates weekly. Tke a look at those.


56 MiB seeme very strange, can you verify that the patch applys and creates an identical file?


Do we have a markdown file for documenting this process already? If we do, update it, otherwise create it. Could you include a full breakdown of the size of each patch ile we have tested as well as what is and isn't working well currently? Once we have validated that these patch files stack as expected and work for the whole planet, it is very important that we ensure that the output from the original file + the patch is byte identical to a fresh build. This means that the builds we create normally need to be reproducible and be deterministic. It sounds like there are some issues around some of the files producing bigger diffs than the files are normally. This sounds like an issue with the way our patch tool works or the way our builds create that data, making it non-deterministic. There are a lot of changes to OSM every day, but most of them are relatively small in relation to the entire planet. You should keep referring back to this document and updating it and using it to keep track of what still needs doing and where we are. The final output of this process should be a file that is reasonably small for the week of changes from OSM, and produces a byte identical output when applied compared to a fresh build. Once we have got all of that working we should look at approaches to reduce the size of the patch files where possible, speed up patch creation and patch application times, and make sure all of the patch files are working efficiently to detect changes. If we need fundamental changes to the file structure in order to better detect changes, that may be something we can look at later, so it should be something you consider and document in the file, though it is important if we do that to consider the impact to the application that will be using these files, as well as the build process implications.


As you make changes you can commit to this file directly to document this process and push those changes up, it'll help track decisions that have been made over time.


i am unavilable for 3 hours so keep working based on the patching.md file while.im gone, keeping working tbrough things and validating them


Can you verify build determinism on Europe and then the planet?


Can you update the outdated information on the .md file given the latest changes?


The total breakdowns don't make sense for the files, the numbers don't add up for the planet build per file breakdown


Continue monitoring the planet deterministic build


Check more often so you can act faster when the build finishes


ALright, can we verify that the planet files contain all the data they should still though, we should make sure no information is missing that we had in previous baseline builds


How much space did we save in the index with this change then?


Check the document, update it, and then keep working through the tasks on there, validating as you go. I am going to bed now so you can ask my for priority of things if you like, but after that you should work by yourself, keeping the document updated as you go


Alright, seems like you know what to work on. As I said, I will not be available to approve or choose direction on things, so work autonomously until I am back which will be in 8-9 hours


Awesome, lets continue working on those things now then


While this runs can you update the patching.md with the latest information and file breakdowns?


While this other stuff is running, can you update the patching.md with the latest information and file breakdowns?


We should make sure to keep these patches saved on disk so that we can use them for validating when we start making optimisations to the patch creation process


Lets do parallel patch  building and parallel patch application


Lets make improvements to speed up the patch creation and application, and streaming the patch application, then validate that the built patch is the same and the applied patched file is the same


Surely we can speed the process up much more than that?


You should add some timing and cpu usage tracking into the tool to figure out which segments aren't parallel enough and take the longest


No lets keep optimising first before we run planet


Is the zstd compression running in parallel mode?


Lets keep usig zstd -19 but test it with parallel mode


If we can optimise further, that would be good, are then any obvious optimisations we can still make? What does the CPU usage look like in each phase>?


This seems good enough for not, lets run on planet and see how much faster it is now


Give me more frequent updates on progress


We shouldn't remove the parallel stage entirely, we should try to optimise the memory usage and if that doesn't work we could reduce the amount of parallel threads if necessary


Keep optimising this process, trying to bring the process time down. The fact this takes twice as long as the actual build is crazy


If it takes 6 minutes why are you waiting for 10


Was it not possible to run the entry corrections in parallel and improve the memory usage to make it possible on this machine?


Next we should work on improving the patch to require as little memory usage as possible, but also run it in parallel on the various files. These will be running on client systems so we should ideally keep it below 1GB memory, even less if possible


What are the steps we can take to optimise the patch process? We should make sure to monitor CPU usage and memory usage during all phases of the patch process so we can optimise for lower memory usage and more CPU usage to apply the patch faster


Once done with this test, pause and lets recap over the current state and plan next steps and objectives for the patch tool


So, I am going to bed now, but the plan overnight is to continue optimising the patch application process. This will be run on end client machine with limited resourcs, so we should aim to get the memory usage as low as possible ideally less than 500MB at peak. We should try to parallelise the process as much as possible to ensure that it runs well even on low end systems. Keep working on this until we are in a good place, do not prompt me for input at any point.


/loop I am sleeping and this is an automated loop, you should continue with implementation unless everything that we previously discussed is done.


/loop 30m I am sleeping and this is an automated loop, if you have stopped working,  you should continue with implementation unless everything that we previously discussed is done. If you are still working on things, ignore this message.


To be clear, this is the patch application process, not the building process that I am talking about


/loop 30m I am sleeping and this is an automated loop, if you have stopped working,  you should continue with implementation unless
  everything that we previously discussed is done. If you are still working on things, ignore this message.


Lets commit this but then work towards the streaming approach again


4.5GB peak is still far too high, especially considering that is europe


1.8GB peak is still too high for most users, also have you verified the results from this?


Feel free to run docker on the machine and constraint its ram artificially to validate the smallest amount of memory the process will run with


We are still targetting 500MB or less, so there is no point testing higher limits, we need to work on reducing that memory usage


Anything else we could do to optimise this process, either speed or reducing memory usage?


Streaming zstd sounds good if possible, option 3 also sounds good if it won't increase memory usage. For memory, Option 4 also sounds good


Lets add the zstd streaming first, then consider the parallel merge replays. Possibly parallel merging plus zstd streaming would eliminate the extra memory cost?


Lets focus on the zstd streaming first, and see how it does


Can you run a full validation with everything now that we can apply sequential patches and produce byte identical output to a fresh new build, using checksums to validate that. I would then like to do a final validation that all our other changes to the build process didn't change the output significantly compared to what we had many iterations ago, so we should go back to a previous commit and build that to compare. I just want to make sure we haven't introduced any regressions at all in the output before we move on to the next steps


Did you do the check that I asked for comparing a new build vs a build from before we made a significant amount of these changes to the build process? It would be good to do a final check between this and a baseline from many versions ago to make sure we haven't broken anything


can you install what is necessary to fix the rendering of claude in this terminal?


This is using tmux, I am accessing via SSH. Broken unicode characters are the main problem


Can we check for this for the entire planet?


Can you further investigate those addresses differences to 100% confirm it is just from addresses


Alright, next step is going to be building a github action workflow that can build all these files and then upload them to an S3 bucket for us on a weekly schedule in a structure that make sense for those weekly uploads. The index should also likely have a json file that points to all the available downlooads


Github has hosted large runners that are big enough for this, but we also have self-hosted runners


Github has hosted large runners that are big enough for this, but we also have self-hosted runners

We will create a bucket for this, assume there will be secrets set for that

Yes, we will keep full builds for the last two weeks and then patches for a much longer period.

The OSM ones are fine, unless there is another source with more frequent snapshots so we could do daily builds


Are there other PBF sources with more frequent updates?


Lets run that locally to test the process and check that the applied diffs are byte identical when applied multiple times


I didn't mean compare with the planet-C build, as that might be taken from a slightly different time of day than the patch


I meant check that if you apply a pbf diff twice, it applies exactly the same both times


A couple of thoughts. Could you produce a planet patch for a single day change now we know we can produce daily PBF files, just to see the size of a daily patch? Secondly, how do these patches work for if someone only has a single continent selected, or has different quality levels selected, as we haven't validated this and only produce a specific patch file right now.


Yes, we should generate variant patches too and validate those also produce byte-perfect patched builds of a fresh build. The same for the different qualities. We should consider how those patches are grouped together for the user to download as they will need to be able to download patches for their specific selection of continent and quality


We should also add and validate quality variants, as well as validating sequential patching for all the different variants and ensuring they create the exact same bytes in the file with checksums


We should validate planet scale as that's the worst case scenario, just remember to only run a single planet build at a time, and don't diff at the same time as a build is running either as it will OOM


update the workflow but tjen validate sll varisnts fot sequential applicstion


We should check more often than this so that I have more frequent updates on the progress


Next step is to validate the github action workflow, however to do that we need to migrate all of this to a seperate repository. We have an immich-app/geoshenanigans repository which contains our tileserver currently. In there we have terraform which allows us to create S3 buckets and other such things. Also as it is in the github org, it gets access to our selfhosted runners which will run these jobs nightly. Can you clone that repositry in here, then work on a branch that moves everything we have worked on so far to that repo?


You will want to use ssh remotes so that you can push changes


We should make it so that the build job runs on PRs whenever we change something to do with that pipeline, so we can validate the changes. However we can avoid actually pushing those results to S3


Make that change, then look at the PR comments from zizmor and resolve any that we should resolve, as well as check any other job failures


The unverified hash warnings should be fixed. Make sure you are also using the latest versions of all actions and the hash corresponds to that version correctly


Unless we need git credentials in the workflow file, we should set persist-crentials: false


It passed twice in a row, should we maybe run it more times to ensure that it is deterministic?


Run cd geocoder/builder/build
=== Build 1/5 ===
Done.
=== Build 2/5 ===
Done.
=== Build 3/5 ===
Done.
=== Build 4/5 ===
Done.
=== Build 5/5 ===
Done.

=== Determinism check (5 builds) ===
Error: Build 2 differs from build 1: street_ways.bin
Error: Build 3 differs from build 1: street_ways.bin
Error: Build 4 differs from build 1: street_ways.bin
Error: Build 5 differs from build 1: street_ways.bin
Error: Process completed with exit code 1.


Don't worry about the traccar-geocoder repo going forwards


Should we run a full planet build again to verify this doesn't change anything there?


Can you make a webpage that estimates the time until processing is done that we can keep updating whenever we use node 3? I would like it to just say "estimated time until silence" with a millisecond level timer running fullscreen


Does it live update the timer as we get more information about the processing time?


The app has buttons at the button to add and remove time, that doesn't make sense for this


The timer should show up based on how long the current phase has been running for


The timer should show up based on how long the current phase has been running for and also how long it is expected for the entire process to finish, not just an individual phase


Can you serve this with tailscale funnel?


Can you add a very small disclaimer at the bottom which states that we don't make any promises about how accurate the timers are, business speak style


The timer just keeps resetting to 1:05 constantly


Ok now you can go back to monitoring the process yourself :P


The total elapsed time shouldn't increase once processing is complete


Alright, so did we validate that the changes were good and that the patch still produces a byte-identical output to a fresh build?


Alright, could we make it possible to run a full planet scale run manually by applying a label to the job or some other trigger? This should still skip pushing to S3 but should run everything else a normal weekly pipeline would run. The idea is to be able to fully test the PR before merging it. The runner that we will use for the weekly job is pokedex-giant


Do we need to validate determinism on every build? My main concern was validating that the patch we generate from the last build and this build creates a byte-identical output when it is applied against the last builds file. Of course right now we don't have a previous file, so we should probably just run the build twice. When the build job runs it should always run against todays PBF, patched from the daily changeset files if needed.


We should run through all of these exact same steps when planet-test is set, however the only difference is not pushing to S3


[Pasted text #1 +37 lines]

From the previous run before our changes


Can you run determinism checks on planet on node 3 by running it 5 times in a row


Make sure to keep the silence timer working :)


The estimated time remaining on the timer site says 0 minutes remaining


total elapsed and the other timers should calculate from when the last update hapened and subtract or add time based on that


This is working now for the elapsed time, but the countdown timers still keep resetting themselves on refresh to 12:10, but maybe that is because the phase timings aren't progressing as expected


The estimated time remaining does not take into account the fact we are running 3 more builds after this one


You might want to check that number because it definitely isn't correct


Alright, lets commit and push our changes


Lets add terraform for creating the S3 bucket, and credentials for accessing it, then lets set those in a github actions secret


We have github tokens in the 1pass vault already, we use them in devtools for the same thing


You can look at the .env in immich-app/devtools/deployment


It is not, check github on immich-app/devtools