Great to see the shootout results.

 

Also interesting to see the Amazon RDS announcement (MySQL based) with
possibility of using quadruple extra large EC2 instances: db.m2.4xlarge - 68
GB of RAM 

http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2009/10/introducing-rds-the-amazon-relational-dat
abase-service-.html

http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2009/10/two-new-ec2-instance-types-additional-mem
ory.html

 

Maybe next shootout the DB layer could look at Amazon RDS(mySQL) and
PostgreSQL/PostGIS using a quadruple extra large instance 68Gb RAM. 

 

After reading Todd Hoff's blog I'd be curious to see if PostGIS could be
configured to make use of large memory capacities and how it affects
performance:

http://highscalability.com/are-cloud-based-memory-architectures-next-big-thi
ng

 

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 presentation/results

 

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 using the database.  Only then
could the performance of the actual map servers be evaluated.  Performance
shootouts/testing take time to do correctly as each run teaches you more and
more about how your deployment architecture affects the results.

 

Craig

Geospatial Software Engineer

Spatial Minds, LLC <http://spatialminds.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 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

Reply via email to