It was really interesting. The very close results suggests to me that the bottlenecks were external to the WMS and more related to external limitations like the ability to supply things like I/O. It would be interesting to have profiling data on where the response time was spent. For Mapserver it'd be a simple case of running Valgrinf and KCacheGrind:
http://kcachegrind.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/show.cgi/KcacheGrindIndex Case point. We had an in house app for crunching big raster and KCacheGrind showed us that an external library was the biggest bottleneck. A. On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 10:39 AM, Jeff McKenna < jmcke...@gatewaygeomatics.com> wrote: > For those that did not make it to Sydney, here is the WMS Performance > Shootout presentation with results (GeoServer vs MapServer): > > http://www.slideshare.net/gatewaygeomatics.com/wms-performance-shootout > > MapServer: power users who manage MapServer sites with high loads/map draws > should > take note of the results of MapServer CGI vs MapServer FastCGI, even in > the case of Shapefiles and Rasters (yes, quite surprising). > > All: a lot of credit should go to Andrea Aime from GeoServer who worked > very hard in bringing the MapServer team up to speed to learn the testing > process. It was a great experience and we're already looking forward to > next year. > > -jeff > > > -- > Jeff McKenna > FOSS4G Consulting and Training Services > http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > mapserver-users mailing list > mapserver-us...@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users > > > -- > Jeff McKenna > FOSS4G Consulting and Training Services > http://www.gatewaygeomatics.com/ > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss@lists.osgeo.org > http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
