[MapProxy] TileCache vs MapProxy

[Adam Estrada]

Hi! I've never really done any benchmarking on these two scripts but I like MapProxy because it supports standard WMS. Tilecache only supports WMS-C which most modern desktop apps do not like. I think that the idea behind WMS-C is to speed up rendering speeds which is a good thing but again...most desktop apps make arbitrary bbox requests that Tilecache does not support. 

I am by no means an expert on this...I just calling it like I see it ;-) If you really want performance improvements, move the script under Apache_mod or lighthttpd. Let us know what kind of results you come up with in your testing!

Best,
Adam


On Aug 14, 2010, at 4:58 PM, "Sebastian E. Ovide" <sebastian.ovide at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Hi Guys
> 
> Last week I had tried TileCache and it is very easy to install and to configure...I liked it... nevertheless the pre seeding or pre caching is quite slow... it reads one tile at a time !
> 
> Today I've just found MapProxy.... 
> 
> just wondering if MapProxy is in any way better than TileCache... Is it better in pre seeding ?
> 
> I am sure that the responses to this thread will be seriously objective... ;)
> 
> thanks
> -- 
> Sebastian E. Ovide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MapProxy mailing list
> MapProxy at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapproxy