Comments on: ESRI ArcIMS vs. UMN MapServer

By: Nelson

Nelson — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:40:30 +0000

The speed difference isn’t huge… the price is….

By: Dol Momphotez

Dol Momphotez — Mon, 08 May 2006 16:18:33 +0000

i have made a development on mapserver, but right now i have a big problem i cantÂ´not make juxtaposition of layers, if somebody can help me telling me if itÂ´s posible to make this whit mapserver please help me.

By: tim waters

tim waters — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:12:00 +0000

I would also like to see the details of the test-setup, and in particular how different hardware can affect performance. Compare, for example, the two running on a PIII with 1ghz of ram, and then compare the two running on the latest top end server.

By: Morten

Morten — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:49:54 +0000

It would be nice to get hold on the test-setup so one could verify it as well, or even extend this test to include some of the other mapservers on the market.

By: James Fee

James Fee — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 04:18:27 +0000

What? I’ve never even seen a pot to stir before.

By: Chris Tweedie

Chris Tweedie — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 01:10:23 +0000

James, you must love opening up these can of worms

My POV? It will always come down to the operator. I have spoken to a few people who conversely claim ArcIMS blows mapserver out of the water, only to find that they deployed 3x spatial servers to do it.
Trying to find common ground in terms of deployment of the app and the datasource is also always going to be difficult. Even shapefiles which you would think would be a good start, have different index implementations.

By: hobu

hobu — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:35:28 +0000

I would guess that ArcIMS 9.x has seen quite a few improvements since the 4.x series. The interesting thing to me on that powerpoint is the shapes of the graphs. They are both shaped similarly except for the data projection case. That was kind of surprising, but it has probably been fixed.

My experience with both is that data organization matters the most. Indexes and the use of generalized geometries in situations where you don’t need a lot of detail have a lot of impact. The performance of both seems to be highly sensitive to the person who set them up and how haphazardly they did it

By: Larry

Larry — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:26:53 +0000

I agree with James. ArcIMS has its issues, but speed hasn’t been one in our implementation. We’ve had bigger issues with our SDE and local data storage than we have with the actual serving speed.

I wish ArcIMS was as easy to administer as Mapserver. A MMC plugin would be very helpful. The current tools are so archaic.

That PPT had ArcIMS 4.01 in it. Has 9.0 gotten quicker than 4.0?

By: James Fee

James Fee — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:20:37 +0000

Thanks Hobu. That was good.

By: Valerio Alesi

Valerio Alesi — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 21:18:32 +0000

Do peoples think that ArcIMS is slow? Me thinks it fastest if directions followed.