All, FYI
On 6/13/16, 3:24 PM, "Rob Emanuele" <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >Hello LocationTech community, > >I'd like to write to you about some work that I and others on the GeoTrellis >team at Azavea are about to undertake. > >We are starting down the path of integrating GeoTrellis with the GeoWave and >GeoMesa projects. As part of this, a clear understanding of both of those >projects is necessary. As some of you may know, if we were to draw the Venn >diagram of the feature set those two projects, there would be a large >overlapping portion, specifically around working with vector data on Accumulo. > >I have frequently been presented with the following question: what is the >differences between GeoWave and GeoMesa? In talks about LocationTech big geo >data projects that I have given at EclipseCon Europe 2015, FOSS4G NA 2016 and >Apache Big Data 2016, I have attempted to address this question at a very high >level. However, through my work on those talks, and research into the >integration work, I have come to the conclusion that we all need to develop a >deeper sense of how these two projects compare. > >A deeper understanding will take a focused comparative analysis of the two >projects, and that is what this initiative intends to do. Since the GeoTrellis >team already has some familiarity with both the two projects and Accumulo, >and we also have a good working relationship with the core teams developing >GeoMesa and GeoWave, I believe the GeoTrellis team at Azavea is in a unique >position to lead such an analysis. We will also be able to act as an >independent group that will be able to perform the analysis a minimum of >likely bias. > >The government organizations which support the GeoWave and GeoMesa projects >are interested in this type of detailed analysis, and have agreed to support >this comparison effort. This type of comparative analysis should also be of >interest to the wider LocationTech community, and the big geo data community >in general. > >A proposed plan of attack for this comparative analysis is as follows: > >- Read through the documentation and source code of each project, in order to >clearly map out the feature set and approaches of the projects. >- Develop a set of performance test cases that map to real world use cases, >and perform those test on each system under a variety of cluster >configurations and data sets. >- Use the information gathered from those actions to develop documentation >that explains the methodology and results of our comparative analysis, >recommendations for components to use under various use cases, and list >suggestions about potential ways the two projects can collaborate moving >forward. > >The GeoBench project has already done some work on performance benchmarking >between various systems, including GeoWave and GeoMesa. We hope to learn from >that project and if possible contribute to it; however the purposes of the >projects differ in that the performance tests conducted under this comparative >analysis will specifically be in the service of comparing the functionality >and performance of GeoWave and GeoMesa under the specified use cases. > >We will be beginning work on this project in the near future. I want to >outline our intentions and proposed plan here in order to elicit feedback from >the community, and to be as open and transparent as possible. > >I'm looking forward to working with the GeoMesa and and GeoWave teams on this >project, as much as they have the capacity to support our inquiries and >contribute. I believe the success of this effort will be heavily dependant on >our ability to work with the GeoMesa and GeoWave teams in order to best >understand their systems and set them up correctly for performance tests. > >I'm also excited about the ancillary benefits which will fall out of this >effort, including documentation, deployment strategies, and issues that will >be exposed and fixed because of our work here. > >I also hope to gain help and support from the greater community. One item that >will be helpful to contribute to is the set of use cases under which we will >be performing our comparative analysis. I will be following up soon with a >method to get feedback and suggestions on the set of use cases we will be >building. In the meantime, if anyone has questions or comments about this >effort, I encourage you to be in touch, either on-list of off. > >Best Regards, >Rob > >-- >Robert Emanuele, Tech Lead >Azavea | 990 Spring Garden Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA >[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> | T 215.701.7502 ><tel:215.701.7502> | Web azavea.com <http://www.azavea.com/> | @azavea ><http://twitter.com/azavea> > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >location-iwg mailing list >[email protected] >To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from >this list, visit >https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg
