[Qgis-user] questions about the FOSSGIS 2013 benchmark comparisons between QGIS Server and UMN Mapserver

[G. Allegri]

Thanks Marco. Caching, caching and caching :)
Next days I'm going to setup a QGIS server from master to test the
improvements. I will also test its behaviour behind a MapProxy instance
with tiling and a complex labeled layer, to see the outputs with meta
tiling and tile buffering. I'm gonna stress it!

giovanni

2013/6/22 Marco Hugentobler <marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch>

> >It is important that you test QGIS master not QGIS 1.8. QGIS 1.8 was
> definitely slower than UMN, but in master there are performance
> improvements in the server part. Marco >knows the details.
>
> There have been a lot of performance improvements in QGIS core (e.g. the
> new raster system, svg cache, more performant coordinate reprojection, CRS
> and Coordinate transform cache, project file cache, ...).
>
> Nore that the benchmark especially measures the scalability of the WMS
> server (many concurrent requests). For scalability, it is important that as
> much is CPU-based and data comes from RAM rather than from disk. While a
> desktop user e.g. does not notice a request to the sqlite DB to lookup a
> CRS definition, this small disk access had a big impact on scalability.
> Similarly for SVG files, project files, coordinate transformations. All
> these things are cached now on first usage.
>
> Regards,
> Marco
>
>
> On 21.06.2013 13:10, Andreas Neumann wrote:
>
>> Hi Giovanni,
>>
>> It is important that you test QGIS master not QGIS 1.8. QGIS 1.8 was
>> definitely slower than UMN, but in master there are performance
>> improvements in the server part. Marco knows the details.
>>
>> Andreas
>>
>> On Fri, 21 Jun 2013 12:09:18 +0200, G. Allegri wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I was reading the graphs (I do not understand german, sorry) of the
>>> slides from Sourcepole about their banchmarks [1].
>>> I was surprised to see how QGIS Server outperforms UMN Mapserver,
>>> because my experience was different. I haven't done comparisons in the
>>> last months. In the past performances didn't appear better then
>>> Mapserver.
>>>
>>> Marco (and the ohters from Sourcepole), could you share the
>>> configurations adopted for the benchmark? Hardware, http server
>>> configuration, caching, tiling, etc.? Something is written inside the
>>> PDF, but Google Translator isn't doing a great work :(
>>>
>>> Thanks a lot,
>>> Giovanni
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://sourcepole.ch/assets/**2013/6/17/fossgis_2013_**
>>> performanceoptimierte_wms_**dienste.pdf<http://sourcepole.ch/assets/2013/6/17/fossgis_2013_performanceoptimierte_wms_dienste.pdf>
>>> [1]
>>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dr. Marco Hugentobler
> Sourcepole -  Linux & Open Source Solutions
> Weberstrasse 5, CH-8004 Zürich, Switzerland
> marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.**ch <marco.hugentobler at sourcepole.ch>
> http://www.sourcepole.ch
> Technical Advisor QGIS Project Steering Committee
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Qgis-user mailing list
> Qgis-user at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/**mailman/listinfo/qgis-user<http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-user>
>



-- 
Giovanni Allegri
http://about.me/giovanniallegri
blog: http://blog.spaziogis.it
GEO+ geomatica in Italia http://bit.ly/GEOplus
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-user/attachments/20130624/55bc8cb9/attachment.html>