<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>Hi René Luc, <br></div>thanks a lot for starting that analysis!<br><br></div>Do you plan to be in Madeira? Elaborating a complete test suite together would be perfectly fitted for that task .<br><br></div>Some questions:<br><br></div>- Trust option is only there to not query datasource when this one has no metadata for PK and extent. So it should only make sense to compare the first getcapabilities or project load with and without trust option. Other following requests should not have any impact, so we need to make sure the platform is not measuring something else in the differences you note. So I don't see what you mean by "completing" the trust option. Can you be more explicit ?<br><br></div>- Is the test platform requesting wms layer groups, and did you test the multithread rendering? How many cores? How many cores really available when testing? <br><br></div>I think we should first elaborate a common reference test suite and couple a system monitoring at the same time to be sure we don't have external noise in the tests, and find system bottlenecks. Then only we can consider some conclusions over development priorities I think.<br><br></div><div>Many thanks !<br><br></div><div>Régis <br></div><div><br></div><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2018-02-08 15:19 GMT+01:00 René-Luc Dhont <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rldhont@gmail.com" target="_blank">rldhont@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Devs,<br>
<br>
I have made some analyse of the performances data generated by
CampToCamp test platform.<br>
The data are downloadable here
<a class="m_118913519825020361moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://gmf-test.sig.cloud.camptocamp.net/ms_perfs/" target="_blank">https://gmf-test.sig.cloud.<wbr>camptocamp.net/ms_perfs/</a><br>
And the tests are based on this docker-pull:
<a class="m_118913519825020361moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/camptocamp/ms_perfs" target="_blank">https://github.com/camptocamp/<wbr>ms_perfs</a><br>
<br>
The QGIS Server docker used for these tests are based on the Kartoza
one updated by CampToCamp<br>
<a class="m_118913519825020361moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/kartoza/docker-qgis-server" target="_blank">https://github.com/kartoza/<wbr>docker-qgis-server</a> It is based on Apache
Server and FCGI.<br>
<br>
The data comes from OpenStreetMap and are stored in a
PostgreSQL/PostGIS database.<br>
One type of request is tested, GetMap. Varoious number of
simultaneous users and various scale <br>
are tested.<br>
<br>
To give an answer to the question : Is QGIS Server 3 fast yet ? , I
only used the values for 10 simultaneous<br>
users.<br>
<br>
If the reference to the question is QGIS Server 2: QGIS Server 3 is
NOT faster even with the trust option activated in the project.<br>
QGIS Server 3 is always slower than QGIS Server 2, when only one
layer is requested.<br>
In the tests, QGIS Sever 3 is faster than QGIS Server 2 with
multi-layers and complex styles.<br>
<br>
This result can be easily explain by the new way QGIS Server is
loaded project. QGIS Server 3 uses the QgsProject class, so all the
<br>
project : layers and layouts are loaded even if only one layer is
requested.<br>
<br>
About the trust project option, the results are a little bit <span id="m_118913519825020361result_box" class="m_118913519825020361short_text" lang="en"><span>disappointing.
The performances are not always better than without.<br>
For higher scale (1° by 800px), requests are slower, but for
lower scale (</span></span><span id="m_118913519825020361result_box" class="m_118913519825020361short_text" lang="en"><span><span class="m_118913519825020361cwcot" id="m_118913519825020361cwos">0.015</span></span></span><span id="m_118913519825020361result_box" class="m_118913519825020361short_text" lang="en"><span><span class="m_118913519825020361cwcot" id="m_118913519825020361cwos"><span class="m_118913519825020361cwcot" id="m_118913519825020361cwos">625° by 800px)</span></span>,
they are faster.<br>
<br>
Now if we consired GeoServer-jai as a reference, QGIS Server 3
is slower in lower sacle (0.03125° by 800px)<br>
</span></span><span id="m_118913519825020361result_box" class="m_118913519825020361short_text" lang="en"><span><span id="m_118913519825020361result_box" class="m_118913519825020361short_text" lang="en"><span>Now if we consired Mapserver as a reference, QGIS
Server 3 is slower!<br>
<br>
We have to test some configuration:<br>
* disable simplify local<br>
* change simplify max scale<br>
<br>
Points of enhancement have to be explored :<br>
* Faster QgsProject loading based on project parsing <br>
* Simplify configuration at layer level<br>
* Completing trust option<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
René-Luc<br>
* Enhance simplification<br>
</span></span></span></span>
</div>
<br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
QGIS-Developer mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org">QGIS-Developer@lists.osgeo.org</a><br>
List info: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/qgis-<wbr>developer</a><br>
Unsubscribe: <a href="https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-developer" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.osgeo.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/qgis-<wbr>developer</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div>