[Tilecache] TileCache tile storage questions

[Ritesh Ambastha]

1. You can use mogrify to play with tile compression.
2. 256 x 256 is always a better option
3. Don't know :(

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Pedro Mendes <p.m.g.mendes at gmail.com>wrote:

> 1. Can I store tile in zip or gz format?
>> For my understand Apache web server can read gz or zip format.
>>
>
> The tiles must be stored in a raster format (png, jpg, gif, etc.) support
> by TileCache. It would not make too much sense to apply compression to
> image formats (take png as an example) because they are already compressed.
>
>
>> 2. tilessize matter? 512*512 vs 256*256 which one is faster
>> 256pixels took too much disk space. if we use 512 pixel, I think tiles
>> totally size will be smaller.
>> because ,if the 256pixel tile is less than 4kb, the tile still take 4kb
>> disk space. that s why I want to increase to 512*512px.
>>
>
> You must evaluate which ones fits you best: Depending on your data
> complexity, but normally if the tiles are bigger the seeding process will
> take a longer.
>
> 3. Is MBtiles as same faster as disk tiles, if I store tiles in mbtiles?
>
> 4. how much diskspace can MBtiles save?(if we have 500GB disk tiles right
>> now, MBtiles will be 100GB or even smaller?)
>>
>
> TileCache only provides two types of cache DiskCache and MemoryCache. For
> MBTiles you must go seek other tile cache implementations like MapProxy.
>
>
> Regards,
> Mendes
>
> _______________________________________________
> Tilecache mailing list
> Tilecache at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/tilecache/attachments/20120117/30a32657/attachment.html