Geoserver vs. Mapserver
Geoserver and Mapserver are both quite powerful but their developers pursued different goals.
To make the choice easier for you (I hope), here comes a general feature comparison:
|WMS||both are good||maybe a bit better |
|WFS||better, supports WFS-T ||no WFS-T |
|Technology||J2EE ||CGI |
|Project start||2003 ||1996 |
|Administration||Web tool||Mapfile generation can be aided by QGIS, but not comparable to Geoserver’s web admin tool|
|Extensibility||good for Java developers ||PHP Mapscript, good for PHP developers |
|Cartography||uses standardized SLDs||powerful; styles are part of mapfile|
|Services||one WMS/WFS/WCS service for all users ||a mapfile means a service |
|Querying||CQL and OGC filters||embedded SQL statements|
New benchmarking results should be available soon . Meanwhile, you might wanna watch last years results .
what do you mean by “one WMS/WFS/WCS service for all users”?
We’re going through the MapServer vs GeoServer debate and trying to decide on one going forward. We deal with a lot of time series raster data. We also currently use GeoNetwork for metadata. Any advice? I know it’s a loaded question. Our use case is so varied and we want the most flexibility going forward but prefer to take advantage of already produced software instead of cobbling customizations onto everything.
“one WMS/WFS/WCS service for all users” means that there is only one configuration for all services in Geoserver while different services are spread over separate mapfiles in Mapserver.
I haven’t looked much into the topic since this post in 2010. I went with Geoserver because it’s easier to configure in my opinion and because i wanted a WFS.
Nowadays, I’m using QGIS Server because it’s even easier :)
Just copy-paste the QGIS project file and the service is good to go.