Benchmarking 2011/MeetingLog

= Benchmarking 2011 IRC Meetings =


 * Wed February 23rd, 2011 [log: http://logs.qgis.org/foss4g/%23foss4g.2011-02-23.log]
 * Agenda:
 * Create plan for vector (OSM) and raster (DEM) data processing
 * Discuss testing methodology
 * final presentation discussion


 * Wed February 16th, 2011 (log: http://logs.qgis.org/foss4g/%23foss4g.2011-02-16.log)
 * attendance:
 * Dane Springmeyer - Mapnik
 * Jeff McKenna - MapServer
 * Alex Wong - ERDAS
 * Pirmin Kalberer - QGIS mapserver
 * Mike Smith - Hardware / MapServer / Oracle MapViewer
 * Summary
 * final presentation discussion
 * springmeyer and jmckenna to submit abstract for presentation today or tomorrow
 * aaime sent message to jmckenna urging the use of the mailing list more by all teams
 * data sources discussion
 * springmeyer pointed out that some generalizing occurs with the osm2ogsql tool
 * springmeyer suggests 3 types of OpenStreetMap tests: data in shapefile (cloudmade extracts), data in PostGIS (osm2pgsql), and then a "best effort" (data in any format)
 * pirmin_k noted that osm2pgsql tool does not work well for QGIS
 * testing process discussion
 * covered in data discussion above


 * Wed February 9th, 2011 (log: http://logs.qgis.org/foss4g/%23foss4g.2011-02-09.log)
 * attendance:
 * Marco Hugentobler - QGIS mapserver
 * Jeff McKenna - MapServer
 * Gabriel Roldan - GeoServer
 * Alex Wong - ERDAS
 * Mike Smith - Hardware / MapServer / Oracle MapViewer
 * Martin Daly - Cadcorp
 * Summary
 * data sources discussion
 * teams voted in support of using OpenStreetMap data for Colorado for vector
 * for raster, mpdaly suggests using DEMs
 * mdsmith suggests USGS Seamless NED or NAIP, and he also gets snowpack data daily
 * testing process discussion
 * teams support the plan to test only best effort, with data in format of your choice, but data must retain original detail (no generalizing)
 * continued discussion on testing tilecaching by servers...with the goal being to enhance how each server handles labelling on tiles


 * Wed February 2nd, 2011 (log: http://logs.qgis.org/foss4g/%23foss4g.2011-02-02.log)
 * attendance:
 * Marco Hugentobler - QGIS mapserver
 * Mike Smith - Hardware / MapServer / Oracle MapViewer
 * Alex Wong - ERDAS
 * Daniel Morissette - MapServer
 * Martin Daly - Cadcorp
 * Jeff McKenna - MapServer
 * Summary
 * data sources discussion
 * unknown if suggested SPOT imagery can be distributed freely to the public
 * we should probably use local Denver/Colorado data
 * possibility of using U.S. Census TIGER data for Colorado
 * the benchmarking exercise in 2009 used TIGER data for Texas
 * mpdaly suggests using OpenStreetMap data
 * sample styling of MapServer using OSM data for Colorado already exists: map on http://www.mapserver.org/trunk/
 * testing process discussion
 * marco suggested that we have separate tests for point/line/poly, in addition to other tests
 * all teams voted to accept that we would only present a subset of the tests (we will decide what subset to use later)
 * mdsmith suggests testing tilecache seeding for each server...testing how the server's labeling engine handles edges of tiles


 * Wed January 12th, 2011 (log: http://logs.qgis.org/foss4g/%23foss4g.2011-01-12.log)
 * attendance:
 * Andrea Aaime - GeoServer
 * Jeff McKenna - MapServer
 * Pirmin Kalberer - QGIS mapserver
 * Marco Hugentobler - QGIS mapserver
 * Mike Smith - Hardware / MapServer / Oracle MapViewer
 * Anne-Sophie Collignon - Erdas
 * Daniel Morissette - MapServer
 * Adrian Custer - Undetermined
 * Andreas Schmitz - Deegree
 * Martin Daly - Cadcorp
 * Jean-Francois Faudi - Data
 * Ivan Sanchez - Vocals
 * Summary
 * acuster: relayed that ESRI is still discussing internally about commitment
 * mdsmith: servers are now in our new datacenter and in racks. they are on ups + standby generator
 * discussion on data sources
 * jeffaudi: can supply 100 tiles of 1GB GeoTIFF imagery (SPOT)
 * all agreed data and styles need to be prepared soon
 * suggestion that testing methodology needs to be redesigned
 * teams will be allowed to join the exercise late, but must follow the rules of engagement (they can propose changes, but teams are not required to follow)