Presented at GeoLivre 2009 conference in Brasilia, Brazil. http://www.geolivre.com/

1. OSGeo Conferences Report Jeff McKenna, OSGeo Board of Director

2. Lausanne, Switzerland 2006

3. Victoria BC, Canada 2007

4. Victoria BC, Canada 2007

5. Cape Town, South Africa 2008

6. Sydney, Australia – Oct 2009

7. Sydney, Australia – Oct 2009

8. FOSS4G 2010 Barcelona, Spain – 6 to 9 September

9. FOSS4G 2011

11. OSGeo Japan Event - 2008

12. But What Happened at FOSS4G 2009?

13. WMS Benchmarking Exercise

17. Raster: ECW and GeoTiff mosaics

21. raster read optimization (single pass for multiple bands)

22. enhancing polygon labelling placement

23. EPSG codes caching

24. PostGIS improvements

25. Oracle improvements

27. GML writing speed-ups

28. Raster data access improvements

29. PostGIS data store optimizations

32. Same data backends

34. Data used cannot be modified for display, other than indexing

35. All testing to be done on the same benchmarking machines

36. Hardware Configuration Bench WMS Database JMeter GeoServer MapServer Shapefiles ECW GeoTIFF Oracle PostGIS SDE

38. Apache 2.2

41. SDE 9.3.1

42. PostGIS 1.4.0

45. 4 Xeon Nocona 3.4Ghz, 8 GB RAM

47. 1 x Intel Core2 Duo CPU E6750 @ 2.66GHz / Dual Core, 4Gb RAM

48. 100Gb SATA 3.0Gb/s 7200 rpm HD, OS: RedHat Enterprise 5.3

50. Each test uses a random set of requests stored in a CSV file: no two requests in the same run are equal, but all servers perform the same workload

53. The other GIS server is shut down while the tests are run

55. Point layer: gnis_names09 : all location and points of interest names for the state of Texas in the GNIS database. 103000 points, 2.8 MB shapefile, EPSG:4269

56. Line layer, edges_merge : all line elements (rivers and roads) from the TIGER 2008 dataset for the state of Texas. over 5M lines, 1.2GB shapefile, 1.4GB dbf, EPSG:4269

57. Raster layer : Bluemarble TNG, 86400 x 43200 pixels, 7 overview layers (TIF, ECW, tiled 512&8, GeoRaster)

59. Simply fill the polygon in blue, no outline

60. Image scales roughly between 1:10.000 and 1:100.000

61. T1: Shapefiles

62. T1: PostGIS

63. T1: Oracle

64. T1: SDE

66. PostGIS performs roughly 5% better than Oracle on higher loads

67. SDE seems to introduce no overhead compared to direct Oracle access for GeoServer, and a slight overhead for MapServer

68. GeoServer and MapServer have exactly the same performance when the backend is PostGIS and Oracle

70. T3: shapefiles

71. T3: PostGIS

72. T3: Oracle

73. T3: SDE

75. The slowdown observed in most tests is probably due to more expensive calls being performed in the 20 clients section of the benchmark (requests are random, thus are not guaranteed to be uniformly expensive)

77. ECW file is 260MB

78. TIFFs are uncompressed, tiled, with overviews. Around 16GB for each mosaic

79. T5: ECW

80. T5: 512 tiles mosaic

81. T5: BigTiff vs 8 tiles tiff GeoServer cannot do BigTiff, so a 8 tiles mosaic was used (almost 2G B per tile)

83. Fixed problem with 5.6.0-beta for SDE layers

85. Fixed problem with ECW crashes under high load

87. Put the servers under a faster internet connection for quicker data transfers and tests setups

88. Modify the number of parallel client requests performed so that the 2-4-8 parallel clients case gets exposed

89. Phases/cycles for benchmarking – to allow for teams to interpret results and make software enhancements

90. Reprojection in both vector and raster data

91. Audience suggestions?

93. Wiki home: http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/Benchmarking_2009

94. Mailing list: http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/benchmarking

95. Thanks! [email_address] www.gatewaygeomatics.com Brazil visa, 2010?