Salut Thomas,
I've changed the default page size (pagesize=1k) as you mention and the
size of my Berkeley test DB is now exactly the same as SQLite DB (48 Mo in
my test) :)
Yes it would be great to make it configurable in mapcache.xml as an advanced
configuration option.
But do you think that
I did not do any extensive testing of the performance overhead induced
by the change in cache size. A very unscientific quick test showed
that with 1k pages the bdb cache was marginally slower than the disk
cache, but the difference wasn't significant enough to be able to come
up with any
: thomas bonfort [mailto:thomas.bonf...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 29 May 2012 11:07 p.m.
To: Ludovic Gnemmi; Andrew Cowie
Cc: mapserver-users@lists.osgeo.org
Subject: Re: [mapserver-users] MapCache - A way to reduce BerkeleyDB Cache size
?
Salut Ludovic, hi Andrew,
I've investigated a bit more
Salut Ludovic, hi Andrew,
I've investigated a bit more on the disk space issue with berkeley db
backends, and here are some of my findings. To summarize, the space
occupancy/efficiency is closely tied to the size of the images stored
in the cache, and the configured pagesize of the bdb backend.
For reference, when the disk cache has symlinking enabled:
case 1:
96M
case 2:
147M
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM, thomas bonfort
thomas.bonf...@gmail.com wrote:
Salut Ludovic, hi Andrew,
I've investigated a bit more on the disk space issue with berkeley db
backends, and here are some of
Hi list,
I would like to experiment Berkeley DB cache type but i'm surprised of the
resulting db size compared to sqlite cache type. Here is my results for
about 13000 tiles:
Total tiles size = 44 Mb
Sqlite = 48 Mb
Berkeley DB = 61 Mb
Disk = 66 Mb (with 4kb filesystem block size)
I thought i
