[Benchmarking] 2013 Shootout?

[Oliver Tonnhofer]

Hi Jeff, hi Iván,

On 09.04.2013, at 13:37, Jeff McKenna wrote:
> Are you suggesting a comparison of tile caching engines?  It's
> definitely a huge part of the process these days.

Tile servers are mostly just serving static files and all implementations should be able to push 1000 tile/s even on a small virtual server. This should be fine for 99.9% of all setups (even OSM peaks below 5000 tile/s). Need more performance? Put a varnish in front of it. Done.
Things you can't do for WMS. So, that is IMO not really worth benchmarking.

Comparing other features like merging layers, WMS support, reprojection, performance of the seeding tool, etc. might be more interesting (but even harder to come up with proper benchmarks?!). But then you are comparing features that are not available in all tile engines. 


Regards,
Oliver

-- 
Oliver Tonnhofer    | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG    | http://omniscale.com
http://mapproxy.org | https://github.com/olt    | @oltonn