oud-based-memory-architectures-next-big-thing
Thanks
Randy
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Craig Miller
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:38 PM
To: 'OSGeo Discussions'
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] WMS Performance Shootout pres
f Of Craig Miller
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 8:38 PM
To: 'OSGeo Discussions'
Subject: RE: [OSGeo-Discuss] WMS Performance Shootout presentation/results
I agree wholeheartedly. It looks like the bottleneck was the database.
I've been privy to some MapServer tests done by testing
Smith, Michael ERDC-USACE-NH wrote:
We used a static FCGI specification
FastCgiServer /var/www/cgi-bin/mapserv.fcgi -processes 8 -initial_env
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/opt/build/instant_client_11_1/lib:/opt/build
/arcsde_c_sdk/lib
Mike,
I added this info into the shared slides (on the
Le samedi 24 octobre 2009 à 21:53 +1100, Smith, Michael ERDC-USACE-NH a
écrit :
> We used a static FCGI specification
>
> FastCgiServer /var/www/cgi-bin/mapserv.fcgi -processes 8 -initial_env
> LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/opt/build/instant_client_11_1/lib:/opt/build
> /arcsde_c_sdk/lib
>
> Mi
We used a static FCGI specification
FastCgiServer /var/www/cgi-bin/mapserv.fcgi -processes 8 -initial_env
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib:/opt/build/instant_client_11_1/lib:/opt/build
/arcsde_c_sdk/lib
Mike
--
Michael Smith
RSGIS Center
US Army Corps of Engineers
w: (603) 646-4765
On 10/24/0
Hi,
Thanks for publishing this test for people who couldn't make it to
Sydney. I would be interested in getting the Fcgi configuration of
Mapserver in Apache. Any chance to get that ?
Regards
Guillaume
Le samedi 24 octobre 2009 à 10:39 +1100, Jeff McKenna a écrit :
> For those that did not mak
On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
>
> During the benchmark I had very little time to run profilers, but
> the few times I've tried in GeoServer the time seemed to be splitted
> quite equally between data fetching, actual drawing, and output
> image encoding... which is kind of t
Craig Miller ha scritto:
I agree wholeheartedly. It looks like the bottleneck was the database.
I’ve been privy to some MapServer tests done by testing teams over
several months and the result there was always deploying the data with
long update cycles to the middle tier disks instead of usin
inds.com/>
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of antti roppola
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 7:34 PM
To: OSGeo Discussions
Subject: Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] WMS Performance Shootout presentation/results
It was really interesting. The
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
al Message-
From: discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.osgeo.org]
On Behalf Of Jeff McKenna
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:39 PM
To: osgeo
Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] WMS Performance Shootout presentation/
results
For those that did not make it to Sydney, here
Jeff McKenna
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 4:39 PM
> To: osgeo
> Subject: [OSGeo-Discuss] WMS Performance Shootout presentation/results
>
> For those that did not make it to Sydney, here is the WMS Performance
> Shootout presentation with results (GeoServer vs MapSe
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 not
13 matches
Mail list logo
