[MapProxy] Suggested cache setup

[Benjamin Wragg]

Thanks Oliver. Nice clear explanation again, really appreciate it.

Regards,

Benjamin

On 27/07/2012, at 5:52 PM, Oliver Tonnhofer <tonnhofer at omniscale.de> wrote:

> 
> On 26.07.2012, at 22:42, Benjamin Wragg wrote:
>> I have another newbie question...sorry...I have to pre cache via seeding a few large areas total 30,000km2, from level 0-16, so that it can be used by some users offline who don't have internet access. From looking over the docs I can see the default way to store the cached images is on the file system. The other two options are mbtiles and couchdb.
> 
> You should make a seed with a coverage and with --dry-run, that gives you a rough number of tiles you will have to deal with.
> 
>> At what point is it recommended to move to couchdb?
>> Is there a point where the filesystem becomes ineffective/slow and its recommended to start using couchdb? i.e is my above implementation of 30,000km2 from level 0-16 going to cope on the file system?
>> If you only have 1 mapproxy server accessing the cache and there isn't much speed difference, is there any benefit that comes from moving to couchdb?
> 
> 
> The filesystem should be faster than CouchDB, because you have a relatively large overhead with the HTTP protocol between MapProxy and CouchDB. CouchDB is great when you need to have the cache on more than one server, because it has a nice replication feature. You can also create setups where a loadbalancer tries to access the CouchDB directly and only refers to MapProxy when a tile is not available.
> 
> In your case, I think the filesystem will be the best choice.
> 
> Regards,
> Oliver
> 
> -- 
> Oliver Tonnhofer    | Omniscale GmbH & Co KG    | http://omniscale.de
> http://mapproxy.org | https://github.com/olt | @oltonn
> 
>