[mapserver-users] Mapfile VS MapScript performance

[Cristiano Sumariva]

Also using mapscript you can integrate mapserver with application by saving
mapfile into database and letting application manage the mapserver
configuration, grant access to authenticaded session clients
You will lose speed but win maintenance.
I do not really like to update the mapfile, then the tilecache then seed
tiles again for each small change.

2012/11/7 Umberto Nicoletti <umberto.nicoletti at gmail.com>

> The performance point being made clear by Thomas I think I should mention
> a couple of (mostly in functionality) advantages that the WxS wrappers
> might have against cgi/fastcgi:
>
> 1. it is easy to extend the wrapper to add accounting, logging, caching.
> True, accounting and logging can also be accomplished simply by processing
> the web server log files but that requires  extra software and might not be
> easy to impement in complex situations (think a cached request costs x and
> a non-cached y)
>
> 2. request preprocessing: filtering layers, redirecting
>
> 3. image/response prostprocessing: caching, assembling, watermarking,...
>
> Umberto
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 10:15 AM, thomas bonfort <thomas.bonfort at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> - testing against cgi isn't really an objective test, but even so the
>> differences will iron out as soon as the actual workloads are not trivial
>> (i.e. if you're just benchmarking getcapabilities then sure, mapscript
>> keeping in memory your mapfile will be orders of magnitude faster than cgi.
>> switching to complex map draws will show very similar performance between
>> both options)
>> - using fastcgi will somewhat iron out the differences on trivial
>> workloads
>> - certain mapscript scripts will leak non trivial amounts of memory,
>> forcing server restarts periodically if you don't have an infinite amount
>> of memory available.
>>
>> with all that said, my recommendation is to stick with cgi/fastcgi unless
>> you have very specific needs that force you to use mapscript.
>>
>> --
>> thomas
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Umberto Nicoletti <
>> umberto.nicoletti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have tested cgi against python mapscript (with mod_python) and the
>>> performance improvement, as expected, is massive.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Spirifer <ready945 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I would to use MapServer to create WMS/WFS services.
>>>>
>>>> I think to compare 2 systems to produce services:
>>>> 1) Apache + MapServer CGI + static mapfile (.map)
>>>> 2) Apache + MapScript PHP + map configuration in cache
>>>>
>>>> Somebody has tested the performance between the mapfile and MapScript ?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://osgeo-org.1560.n6.nabble.com/Mapfile-VS-MapScript-performance-tp5014463.html
>>>> Sent from the Mapserver - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> mapserver-users mailing list
>>>> mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mapserver-users mailing list
>>> mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-users mailing list
> mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20121107/8d0341d6/attachment.html>