Comparison of Mapserver vs ArcIMS

8/4/2019 Comparison of Mapserver vs ArcIMS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/comparison-of-mapserver-vs-arcims 1/23

Mapserver versus ArcIMS

www.refractions.net 1

MUM/EOGEO 2005

A Comparison of

ArcIMS to MapServer

Brock Anderson

Refractions Research





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Refractions ResearchRefractions Research

• Victoria, BC,Canada

• Spatial SystemsConsulting

• Open SourceSoftware

• PostGIS

uDig / GeoTools





MUM/EOGEO 2005

The ClientThe Client

• BC’s Ministry of Sustainable ResourceManagement (Information ManagementBranch)

– Use mostly ESRI products in their mappinginfrastructure.

– Were frustrated with ArcIMS’s administrativeneediness.

– Were looking for WMS alternatives to ArcIMS.We suggested MapServer.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Test PlanTest Plan

• We prepared a detailed test plan to

compare ArcIMS and MapServer as WMSs.

• The tests covered:– Ease of administration

– WMS 1.1.1 standard compliance

– Interoperability with other software

– Performance

* Ease of administration

- KEY TEST: time to add and reload services

* Interoperability with other software

- KEY TEST: supports ArcSDE 8.3 and 9.x?

* WMS Standard compliance

- KEY TEST: OGC WMS CITE

* Performance (with ArcSDE)

- KEY TEST: feature density

- KEY TEST: feature complexity

- KEY TEST: image output format

- KEY TEST: concurrency

- KEY TEST: reprojection

- KEY TEST: throughput "under regular operating conditions"





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Test EnvironmentTest Environment

Test Client Computer

JMeter 2.01

WMS

Protocol

Test Server

ArcIMS 4.0.1, WMSConnector 1.0

MapServer 4.2.1

ArcSDE 8.3

Jmeter is open source software designed to load test functional behavior and

measure performance .





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Test PreparationsTest Preparations

• Created synthetic data to be used for

certain performance tests.

• Made a JMeter extension to simulate adiversity of GetMap requests.

• Created ArcIMS AXL files and MapServermap files.

•Synthetic data used for feature density and feature complexity test.

•JMeter extension used to generate WMS requests with random bboxes.

•Started with AXL files, and transformed them into .map files





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Creating .map files from .Creating .map files from .axlaxl filesfiles

<!– This is part of an XSL transform that converts ArcIMS .axlfiles into MapServer .map files -->

<xsl:template match="ARCXML">

<xsl:text>MAP</xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text>EXTENT </xsl:text><xsl:value-of

select="./CONFIG/MAP/PROPERTIES/ENVELOPE/@minx"/><xsl:text> </xsl:text><xsl:value-ofselect="./CONFIG/MAP/PROPERTIES/ENVELOPE/@miny"/><xsl:text> </xsl:text><xsl:value-of

select="./CONFIG/MAP/PROPERTIES/ENVELOPE/@maxx"/><xsl:text> </xsl:text><xsl:value-ofselect="./CONFIG/MAP/PROPERTIES/ENVELOPE/@maxy"/><xsl:text>
</xsl:text>

<xsl:text>UNITS </xsl:text><xsl:value-of

select="./CONFIG/MAP/PROPERTIES/MAPUNITS/@units"/><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text> WEB </xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text> METADATA </xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text>"wms_title" "[service_name_here]"</xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text>

<xsl:text>"wms_srs" "[EPSG:????]"</xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text>END #end metadata </xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text><xsl:text>END #end web</xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text>

 <xsl:apply-templates select="./CONFIG/MAP/LAYER"/>

<xsl:text>END #end map</xsl:text><xsl:text>
</xsl:text>

</xsl:template>

ArcIMS .axl service file

MapServer .map service file

•Our client had an “optimized” .axl file containing their provincial basemap

data.

•We used that .axl file to create a .map file from.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Testing Began, andTesting Began, and……

• Early performance tests showed ArcIMS

outperformed MapServerNumber of Concurrent Requests vs. Response Time

702 7751125

25022703 2793

3732

8483

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1 2 4 8

Number of Concurrent Re uests

A v e r a g e R e s p o n s e T i m e ( m s )

ArcIMS

MapServer

•An initial test to convince ourselves that MapServer was comparable to

ArcIMS

•We requested the same map each time: 4 layers (including points, lines and

polygons)

•Each level of concurrency run for 10 minutes.

•Mention that 1) all graphs have at least 30 samples per point. 2) All tests

done against ArcSDE.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

MapServerMapServer’’ss BottlenecksBottlenecks

• Profiling revealed two main

bottlenecks:

– 1 to 2 seconds of ArcSDEconnection overhead per GetMaprequest

– Additional overhead extractingfeatures from ArcSDE





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Minimizing the Connection OverheadMinimizing the Connection Overhead

• Persistent database connections would

nearly eliminate ArcSDE connectionoverhead.

• As a CGI program, MapServer had nomeans to support persistentconnections.

• Added FastCGI support. Thanks Frank!

• Updated the ArcSDE module to utilizepersistent connections. Thanks Howard!

•Frank Warmerdam added FastCGI support to MapServer, and he created a

connection pooling API

•Howard Butler updated the ArcSDE module to utilize connection pooling





MUM/EOGEO 2005

UsingUsing MapServerMapServer withwith FastCGIFastCGI

1. Compile MapServer with FastCGI support.

2. Configure your web server with a FastCGImodule.

3. Update your map files:

LAYER

PROCESSING “CLOSE_CONNECTION=DEFER”

#all other layer settings here...

END #LAYER

* Persistent connections are most useful for

data sources with large connection overhead,such as ArcSDE.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Other EnhancementsOther Enhancements

• Recall, connection overhead was not the

only slowdown.

• We also improved the MapServer codewhich pulled features from ArcSDE.

– This involved experimenting with ESRI’s ArcSDEC API.

– We discovered which operations were costly,and cut down on their use.

*Performance is best for the default version of ArcSDE layers.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

The Same Test AgainThe Same Test Again

• The earlier performance test was run again,

this time with FastCGI and the otherperformance improvements.

Number of Concurrent Requests vs. Response Time

1067934

1114

2384

861 916

1104

1867

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 2 4 8

Number of Concurrent Re uests


MapServer

ArcIMS





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Performance Test ResultsPerformance Test Results (Throughput)(Throughput)

• MapServer now outperforms ArcIMS under

MSRM’s “regular operating conditions.” Regular Traffic Over an Extended Period (Throughput)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Number of Concurrent Users

M a p s P e r S e c o n d

ArcIMS

MapServer

•The higher the better on this graph only

•Difference between concurrency test and this test:

•This test uses random requests for 10 min.

•This test doesn’t hit the server with a sudden burst of requests. They

are ramped up.





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Performance Test ResultsPerformance Test Results (Image Format)(Image Format)

• MapServer is slightly faster to return GIF

and PNG images. ArcIMS is faster for JPG.Image Format vs. Response Time

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

JPG GIF PNG

Ima e Format


ArcIMS

MapServer





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Performance Test ResultsPerformance Test Results ((ReprojectionReprojection))

• MapServer reprojects faster than ArcIMS.

Reprojection vs. Response Time

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

BC Albers (NAD83) La t-Long (NAD 83) UTM10 (NAD 83)

Out ut Pro ection


ArcIMS

MapServer





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Performance Test ResultsPerformance Test Results (Feature Complexity)(Feature Complexity)

• Feature complexity affects both servers

almost equally (from ArcSDE).Feature Complexity vs. Response Time

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512

Number of Points in Each of 10 000 Circles


MapServer (SDE)

ArcIMS (SDE)

MapServer (.shp)





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Performance Test ResultsPerformance Test Results (Feature Density)(Feature Density)

• MapServer extracts features from SDE

slightly faster than ArcIMS does.Feature Density vs. Response Time

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1 2 0 0

0

2 4 0 0

0

3 6 0 0

0

4 8 0 0

0

6 0 0 0

0

7 2 0 0

0

8 4 0 0

0

9 6 0 0

0

1 0 8 0

0 0

1 2 0 0

0 0

1 3 2 0

0 0

1 4 4 0 0 0

Number of Features


MapServer (SDE)

ArcIMS (SDE)

MapServer (.shp)

Actually, this test demonstrates that MapServer (extracts features from SDE) +

(draws the map) faster





MUM/EOGEO 2005

WMS Standard ComplianceWMS Standard Compliance

• MapServer passed all 83 WMS CITE tests.

• ArcIMS (w/ WMS connector) passed 71 of 83 WMS CITE tests.

– ArcIMS failed 12 tests because:

• Wrong MIME type for some responses.

• Wrong “exception code” in some exceptions.

•MIME type of responses is typically expected to be

“application/vnd.ogv.se_xml”





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Ease of AdministrationEase of Administration

• MapServer administration benefits

– No need to reload services (when service fileschange)

– MapServer restarts faster (as fast as the web

server)

• ArcIMS administration benefits

– More granular control over log levels





MUM/EOGEO 2005

Interoperability and SupportInteroperability and Support

• Both WMSs support:

–ArcSDE 8.3 and ArcSDE 9.0

–Styled Layer Descriptor (SLD)

I don’t know how fully either server supports SLD, but our testing showed that

both support these basic features:

•Selecting and styling based on a attribute value

•Selecting and styling based on spatial location (within a bounding box)





MUM/EOGEO 2005

ConclusionsConclusions

MapServer is easier to administer than

ArcIMS.

MapServer is more WMS standardcompliant than ArcIMS.

MapServer matches or surpasses ArcIMSin most performance tests.

* (MSRM adopted MapServer for their

COINPacific web mapping application)




f ti t 23

MUM/EOGEO 2005

Questions?Questions?

Contact me:

Brock Anderson

[email protected]

Refractions Research

www.refractions.net

(250) 383-3022

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	rober0582
View:	231 times
Download:	0 times

Comparison of Mapserver vs ArcIMS

Documents