> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Chris Mattmann <[email protected]>
> Subject: FW: [location-iwg] Comparative Analysis of the GeoMesa and GeoWave
> projects
> Date: June 13, 2016 at 5:33:09 PM EDT
> To: <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: [email protected]
>
> 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
>
