Hi folks,
I thought I'd ask this on the development group instead of the user one as this
is a bit more technical in its nature; please accept my apologies if the
question is rather a complete waste of time.
I have been reviewing the way we cluster our GeoServers and bouncing around
trying to get my head around the ins and outs of the GWC or MapProxy etc. The
documentation seems to hint that I should use a standalone GWC if I'm
clustering but Andrea has pointed out that most people use the embedded GWC
(I'm not sure if that is or is not within a cluster). I would also say we are
not really a high end deployment but we are stuck with Windows and so we have
been having issues that have led us to setup a cluster. I can't comment on
whether or not that is sensible but just for background if you are wondering
why I'm even looking at this.
My current conclusion has been that I should use the embedded GWC but only run
it on one instance of GeoServer (I have four in the cluster) and requests for
totally uncached layers are then sent to a different URL.
The solution does appear to be improving things and seems almost perfect accept
for one potentially minor issue. The method for splitting up requests by URL is
not perfect and so there are a lot more requests going through a single server
and a chance that the GWC instance may still need to do a fair amount of
rendering. This is also the case for things like printing requests for example
which will always miss our cache.
Each layer on a standalone GWC needs to have the <wmsUrl> setting but I've
tried that on a GeoServer configuration <GeoServerTileLayer> and as expected
the field is not used.
Would I be correct in thinking that there would not be an easy way to develop
that setting in so that you can choose whether or not the embedded GWC uses the
current instance or a URL to render missing (or other miss tile) requests?
I only ask as the ability to provide a wmsUrl at some level might provide an
option to use a cluster of GeoServers for rendering as the URL could be an
internal reference to a load balancer. I've no idea whether or not that is a
good or bad idea as the internal route is probably faster in most contexts
anyway so please accept my apologies if the idea is too silly to even
contemplate.
Best Regards,
Paul Wittle
"This e-mail is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain
information about individuals or other sensitive information and should be
handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to
receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to
anyone else. If you have received this email in error, kindly disregard the
content of the message and notify the sender immediately. Please be aware that
all email may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with
relevant legislation."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Geoserver-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geoserver-devel
