Difference between revisions of "Benchmarking 2011/MeetingLog"

From OSGeo
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 12: Line 12:
 
*** data sources discussion
 
*** data sources discussion
 
**** teams voted in support of using OpenStreetMap data for Colorado for vector
 
**** teams voted in support of using OpenStreetMap data for Colorado for vector
***** for raster, mpdaly suggests using DEMs
+
**** for raster, mpdaly suggests using DEMs
**** mdsmith suggests USGS Seamless NED or NAIP, and he also gets snowpack data daily
+
***** mdsmith suggests USGS Seamless NED or NAIP, and he also gets snowpack data daily
 
*** testing process discussion
 
*** 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)
 
**** teams support the plan to test only best effort, with data in format of your choice, but data must retain original detail (no generalizing)

Revision as of 11:14, 9 February 2011

Benchmarking 2011 IRC Meetings

  • 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)