[mapserver-users] MapCache 256 or 512 performance

[thomas bonfort]

Unless you have very specific constraints (the only one I can imagine being
on a very high latency network), I can see no reason to favor 512 over 256.
With 512 you have less tiles to transfer, however on average you will be
tranferring more data that with 256 ones (as the area outside a map view
covered by 512 tiles is greater than that area when using 256 ones).

--
thomas


On 17 May 2013 15:18, Mark Volz <MarkVolz at co.lyon.mn.us> wrote:

>  Hello,****
>
> ** **
>
> I was just wondering if I should use 256*256 tiles or 512*512 tiles in
> MapCache.  In the deployment that I am considering MapCache serve both
> ArcGIS and internet mapping users.  In both cases I expect that users will
> have desktop sized screens.  I am under the impression that 256*256 tiles
> are common.  However, I have also seen 512*512 tiles, which I am assuming
> could be faster as there will be less requests to the server. ****
>
> ** **
>
> What are the current tile size recommendations for MapCache?  ****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark Volz****
>
> GIS Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> _______________________________________________
> mapserver-users mailing list
> mapserver-users at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/mapserver-users/attachments/20130517/03009975/attachment.htm>