Re: Gallery: running mapserver in docker on kubernetes
Jan Hartmann <[email protected]> Fri, 30 Aug 2019 18:31:36 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gis.mapserver.user |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Impressive, looks like viscurl is a real alternative to local files. Thanks for the information, I'm certainly going to look further on this. Jan On 8/30/2019 6:15 PM, Peter Schmitt wrote: > On Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 9:48 AM Jan Hartmann <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Thanks Peter, this is really useful. Do you have any real-world > benchmarks for MapServer that compare regular file access with > vsicurl access, using optimized Geotifs? I've seen the tests for > GDAL at https://trac.osgeo.org/gdal/wiki/CloudOptimizedGeoTIFF, > but what about servering large map-sets over the web? > > I don't have any sort of formal benchmarks... but I can provide > anecdotes from my experiences. Random access to a 256x256 block of > extremely large COGs served from fast SSD would have maybe 100ms > response. The same COG accessed with /vsicurl/: First time the tile > is requested about 400ms. GDAL has a least recently used curl cache. > When a tile is cached, subsequent requests can be served maybe about > 100ms. My cloud provider is AWS... so access from s3 using MapServer > running in a Docker container on an AWS EC2 instance in the us-east-1 > region... and the tile is requested from my local wireless network in > Colorado. > > When the data is a COG in s3 and MapServer runs near the cloud > storage, performance is quite good. I've scaled only to dozens of > users. Allegedly s3 can scale to 5,500 requests per second per prefix > in s3. > https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/optimizing-performance.html Presumably > it would scale fairly well by adding more MapServer processes. _______________________________________________ mapserver-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/mapserver-users