Fwd: [location-iwg] Comparative Analysis of the GeoMesa and GeoWave projects

[George Percivall <gp...@opengeospatial.org>]

> Begin forwarded message:
> 
> From: Chris Mattmann <ma...@apache.org>
> Subject: FW: [location-iwg] Comparative Analysis of the GeoMesa and GeoWave projects
> Date: June 13, 2016 at 5:33:09 PM EDT
> To: <de...@sis.apache.org>
> Reply-To: dev@sis.apache.org
> 
> All, FYI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 6/13/16, 3:24 PM, "Rob Emanuele" <location-iwg-bounces@locationtech.org on behalf of remanuele@azavea.com> 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
>> remanuele@azavea.com <ma...@azavea.com>  | T 215.701.7502 <tel:215.701.7502>  | Web azavea.com <http://www.azavea.com/>  |  @azavea <http://twitter.com/azavea>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> location-iwg mailing list
>> location-iwg@locationtech.org
>> To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
>> https://locationtech.org/mailman/listinfo/location-iwg
>