[Benchmarking] Benchmark 2011

Dane Springmeyer dane at dbsgeo.com
Wed Mar 23 20:34:26 EDT 2011


Same feeling as Gabriel here, great idea. +1 to tiled requests. I've personally not investigated WMTS yet, this would be a good motivator.

On Mar 23, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Gabriel Roldán wrote:

> Sounds like a great idea to me.
> Cheers,
> Gabriel
> On Wed, 2011-03-23 at 17:08 +0000, Martin Daly wrote:
>> All,
>> The only current proposed testing scenario is "pre-populating a tile cache", from Mike Smith.
>> One of the possible side-effects that Mike identified is improved labelling when the requests are for tiles, where the label placement might use a different algorithm compared to a non-tiled request.
>> Assuming that this or another tile-based scenario is chosen, then I think that it might be better to use a tile-based request recipe, instead of a WMS one. This is because there is no standard way to differentiate between two identical WMS requests, one tiled, one not.
>> Previous benchmarks have not really exercised WMS at all, just used a series of identical requests (bar BBOX and WIDTH/HEIGHT, obv.) as a recipe for a single image request. Pre-populating a tile cache via WMS would be no different, except that the WMS recipe gives no way to know that the request is for a tile.
>> Candidates for tile-based services could be the OSGeo TMS, or OGC Web Map Tile Service. They both have the additional benefit of only requiring a single character change from WMS...
>> Were the benchmark to use one or other of these then another positive benefit might be some new implementations of these specs, although this might change the focus of the benchmark for some teams, perhaps too much.
>> I'm not too bothered either way because we already have WMS, WMTS and TMS implementations, and I certainly don't want to bias the benchmark at all.
>> Thoughts?
>> Martin
>> ****************************************************************************
>> This email is confidential and may be privileged and should not be used, read
>> or copied by anyone who is not the  original intended recipient. If you have
>> received this email in error  please inform the sender and delete it from
>> your mailbox or any other storage mechanism. Unless specifically stated,
>> nothing in this email constitutes an offer by Cadcorp and Cadcorp does not
>> warrant that any information contained in this email is accurate.
>> Cadcorp cannot accept liability for any statements made which are clearly the
>> sender's own and not expressly made on behalf of Cadcorp or one of its agents.
>> Please rely on your own virus check. No responsibility is taken by Cadcorp
>> for any damage arising out of any bug or virus infection.
>> ****************************************************************************
>> _______________________________________________
>> Benchmarking mailing list
>> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking
> -- 
> Gabriel Roldan
> groldan at opengeo.org
> Expert service straight from the developers
> _______________________________________________
> Benchmarking mailing list
> Benchmarking at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking

More information about the Benchmarking mailing list