[mapguide-users] RE: render service

[Traian Stanev]

Yes. With PNG compression (deflate in general) there is a point of
diminishing returns as you crank up the compression. That depends on the
network bandwidth and the nature of the map. There is not a single
answer, one has to experiment.


-----Original Message-----
From: mapguide-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:mapguide-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jason Birch
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 11:58 AM
To: MapGuide Users Mail List
Subject: RE: [mapguide-users] RE: render service

It may on the server, but I try to measure performance at the client
side, with a less-than-high-speed connection in mind.  This is why I've
enabled dynamic gzip (with deflate as an alternate) compression on my
web sites for HTML, etc, even though it means that IIS, Apache, or PHP
pulls more CPU.  Of course, I'd have to back off on this if I started
running out of hardware :)

I'm not sure if image compression gives the same cost/speed advantage
though.  Especially if it's trying to apply a linear compression to
continuous data.

Jason 

-----Original Message-----
From: Traian Stanev
Subject: RE: render service


PNG images are already compressed with deflate internally. You would not
gain anything by compressing them again. I actually wonder if reducing
the compression level when rendering pngs would make things go faster,
since deflate() is a major CPU hog.
_______________________________________________
mapguide-users mailing list
mapguide-users at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users