[Tilecache] Cascading tilecache ?

[François Van Der Biest]

Thank's for your advices guys.
The idea of contributing to tilecache is a highly desirable one, though I'd
rather use a LFU algorithm to transfer tiles from RAM to disk, but I'm not
(yet) familiar with python. Moreover, delays are small before we must
deliver the software ...
Anyway, I think this is a great direction for the next developments of
TileCache.

F.

2007/3/14, Schuyler Erle <sderle at metacarta.com>:
>
> On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 16:28 +0100, François Van Der Biest wrote:
>
> > There are 4000 points of interest for which we would like tiles to
> > load very quickly.
> > This is the reason why I suggested to use two cascading tilecache:
> >  - first one on the front machine, with memorycache enabled and a lot
> > of RAM
> >  - second one on the WMS providing machine (the one with mapserver
> > installed) with diskcache enabled and a big fast disk.
>
> This would probably work fine.
>
> I agree with Chris Holmes that a small amount of work in Python would
> get you a single layered Cache inside TileCache, and this would probably
> be more reliable than running two separate instances -- but you want
> them on separate machines, which is probably sensible.
>
> Before you go there, though, have you tried stress testing the disk
> cache by itself on your hardware? You may find it runs fast enough (or
> nearly fast enough).
>
> SDE
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/tilecache/attachments/20070314/0e15f9be/attachment.html