FYI ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. Chief Architect Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 Email: [email protected] WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On 6/13/16, 5:33 PM, "Chris Mattmann" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >
