My mistake... I sent this to Paul and not the list.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Moran Ben-David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:13 PM > To: 'Paul Ramsey' > Subject: RE: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Cluster/Supercomputer/HPC variants of > Mapserver > > Paul, > > Forgive my ignorance, but I'm wondering exactly what you mean by > "assembled at the end". > > Specifically, I am wondering if your implying that the images created by > the farm would need to be transparent PNG's? And therefore, the "master" > would then stack these images up much like ka-map does in a browser. > > Thanks, > Moran > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: UMN MapServer Users List [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Paul Ramsey > > Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 11:51 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [UMN_MAPSERVER-USERS] Cluster/Supercomputer/HPC variants of > > Mapserver > > > > You have not really explained your issues in a detail sufficient to > > give any practical advice. As always, analyze the problem for areas > > of parallelism. There is no built-in mechanism for MPI in Mapserver, > > but if you wanted to really bust up the code, the obvious place of > > inefficiency is the fact that all layers are drawn serially. > > > > A hack to get around that is to bust up your mapping file, into one > > layer per map file. Then give each layer to a different machine. > > Then write a new "master" map file that reads from all the children > > as WMS layers. Put that on yet another machine. Because Mapserver > > sends out the WMS requests in parallel you can get all the layers > > rendered simultaneously on your farm, and then assembled at the end > > on the master. > > > > Paul > > > > On Jan 19, 2006, at 8:10 AM, Biz King wrote: > > > > > Hi All. > > > > > > Is anyone aware of anywhere (or better still, has experience of) > > > running Mapserver via an MPI/Grid interface or as a cluster? > > > > > > We're trying to develop a high-performance mapserver that can cope > > > with the load we're going to be throwing at it! Currently it takes > > > 298 seconds (on a Mac OSX Server, 3.5 Gb Ram, dual 2Ghz processors) > > > to do what we need done on under 60 seconds! There's not much we > > > can do to cut down the load as we're creating a whole series of > > > nodes on a layer via a database and we're then creating the imagery > > > based on these items and outputting them to graphics formats in > > > varying sizes. > > > > > > The results get fed to users on demand without the delays > > > associated with 'on the fly' image creation. > > > > > > Any help will be welcomed! > > > > > > cheers > > > > > > Biz
