[mapguide-users] what's holding people back from upgrading to 2.0?

Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S ks at geograf.dk
Tue Oct 7 18:09:19 EDT 2008

I have modified the viewer to prevent zooming closer than 1:100, because 
the server performs terrible at that point.
I have logged an issue here:

I have not tried different styles, but I was guessing that the renderer 
tries to
map the the entire polygon to pixels, and a building at 1:3 takes MANY 

Regards, Kenneth Skovhede, GEOGRAF A/S

Jonathan Manafi skrev:
> We had some scale ranges in use that implemented some area styling, 
> but I went ahead and added another, specifically for high zoom 
> ranges(tried 0-1000). For our previous styling, we had a dashed line 
> border(line04) and a feature label of the NAME property. I went ahead 
> and just implemented a solid line border.
>     - In the AGG renderer, hitting under 1:100 caused the server to
>     consume steady 50% CPU.
>     - In GD, nothing happened. The server continued to respond the
>     same as in normal conditions.
> So, I tried changing the area style to a dashed line. In GD, using a 
> dashed line caused the server to start eating up memory under 1:100, 
> which really started occurring around 1:50. While zooming in, the 
> memory would temporarily jump to over 200MB, and once the server was 
> no longer using the CPU, the memory would restore itself to around 
> 48MB. At the next zoom level, the memory would jump a little higher, 
> perhaps 280-300MB and then restore itself. At around 1:6, the memory 
> stayed at 520MB usage and would increase at sequential zooms. After 
> that, the memory was never released by the server. Also, once the 
> memory started increasing that much, the layer would no longer be 
> displayed beyond a certain zoom scale; it seems to occur under 1:30.
> If I remember correctly, when I gave the layer to be tested way back 
> when, I think Jason made a comment that this layer was made up of 
> thousands of vertices. I understand that styling and rendering all of 
> that data for a layer is expensive, but how come in this situation two 
> standard styles offered by Autodesk(solid and dashed lines) differ so 
> differently in performance?
> Thanks for your help.
> Traian Stanev wrote:
>> Did you try to use scale ranges to control the style and visibility of the bad layer at high zoom factors? This may alleviate your problem.
>> Traian
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: mapguide-users-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:mapguide-users-
>>> bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Manafi
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2008 3:57 PM
>>> To: MapGuide Users Mail List
>>> Subject: Re: [mapguide-users] what's holding people back from upgrading
>>> to 2.0?
>>> Short answer: yes.
>>> However, testing the package that is available in that ticket, I am
>>> only
>>> getting CPU load issues using the AGG renderer. The GD renderer seems
>>> to
>>> work fine with that small subset of our data. But, when I test our
>>> entire site maps with either renderer, I am still having the same
>>> issues. AGG causes CPU lockup as well as memory-hogging, and GD still
>>> causes memory-hogging.
>>> It is still being caused by the same layer, so I will see if it's
>>> possible to get an updated dataset to test with.
>>> Jason Birch wrote:
>>>> This issue is identified in RFC 52 as AGG-specific, and was in my
>>>> initial testing as well:
>>>> http://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/wiki/MapGuideRfc52
>>>> Are you seeing the same results when you switch to the GD renderer in
>>>> 2.0.x?
>>>> Jason
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jonathan Manafi
>>>> Subject: Re: [mapguide-users] what's holding people back from
>>> upgrading
>>>> to 2.0?
>>>> We experienced extreme CPU and/or memory consumption when we tested
>>> MGOS
>>>> 2.x with some of our data. We created a ticket(#459
>>>> https://trac.osgeo.org/mapguide/ticket/459) to document our problems,
>>>> and I have been testing this issue with all of the updated releases,
>>> and
>>>> I continue to see the same results. We can't zoom all the way into
>>> our
>>>> maps without the server locking up and consuming all of the CPU,
>>> which
>>>> is stopping us from moving a production environment to MGOS 2. We've
>>>> been able to modify 1.2 to suit our needs for almost everything with
>>>> plugins; and if we couldn't add a specific feature, we went in
>>> another
>>>> direction.
>>>> So far, that has been a killer for our migration.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> mapguide-users mailing list
>>> mapguide-users at lists.osgeo.org
>>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> mapguide-users mailing list
> mapguide-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapguide-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapguide-users/attachments/20081008/2492dd37/attachment.html

More information about the mapguide-users mailing list