WMS shootout, ESRI and ERDAS
|
|
Bruce Foster
|
Folks,
My eyes went wide open when someone said that ESRI and ERDAS are participating in FOSS4G open WMS shootout or performance benchmarking. Knowing these two companies for the last 15 years, I just couldnt digest the fact. Well, things have changed ... thats what I thought. Then someone in the list wrote that Erdas is not participating.. Ah.. there comes the truth, I thought.. things cant be so much different. They can never tell you what the performance numbers but they have all the energy to tell the world that they are the fastest on earth (truly, thats what they claim). Thats like telling someone I have the fastest car on earth but will not tell you at what speed it goes or what millage it gives (in very very very tiny letters.. it say when you fix a rocket engine!!!). They have the budget to fool people but not to do the test and tell the numbers. Their WMS is not better than anyone else. Then our big brother, ESRI. I was hoping to see them at FOSS4G presentation here. Just now my colleague said that ESRI dropped out due to resource problem. Fantastic.. typical esri approach... take you to a point where you cant do anything and drop the bomb shell. There are 10,000 guys with that company and they have resource problem !!!!! Their person Sakish wrote to the list that they will participate in CCIP but not WMS.. how sweet. You want the fact? They saw the results of Geoserver and Mapserver and realized that ArcGIS server cant come close to that number.. so drop out... very simple... tell what every you feel like.. because everyone in the gis community is dumb and fool. They had installed the software to the machine, done everything.. but when it comes to doing the actual test that takes only 10 hrs in total.. they have resource problem !!!!!, thats after seeing GS and MS number... not before that. If you want to be competitive, then no company on earth has resource problem. Folks, wake up. If you see these guys, just shoot a point blank question at them. Ask for the truth. All what we want is the performance numbers, is this something difficult ? Dont we have the the right to know the performance before investing money in the software? In most cases, we have the responsibility of recommending the software for agencies .. why should one take the risk? -- Bruce NSW, Australia _______________________________________________ Tilecache mailing list [hidden email] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache |
Jeff Harrison
|
Why don't you ask CubeWerx to participate?
Jeff -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bruce Foster Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:41 PM To: [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email]; [hidden email] Subject: [Tilecache] WMS shootout, ESRI and ERDAS Folks, My eyes went wide open when someone said that ESRI and ERDAS are participating in FOSS4G open WMS shootout or performance benchmarking. Knowing these two companies for the last 15 years, I just couldnt digest the fact. Well, things have changed ... thats what I thought. Then someone in the list wrote that Erdas is not participating.. Ah.. there comes the truth, I thought.. things cant be so much different. They can never tell you what the performance numbers but they have all the energy to tell the world that they are the fastest on earth (truly, thats what they claim). Thats like telling someone I have the fastest car on earth but will not tell you at what speed it goes or what millage it gives (in very very very tiny letters.. it say when you fix a rocket engine!!!). They have the budget to fool people but not to do the test and tell the numbers. Their WMS is not better than anyone else. Then our big brother, ESRI. I was hoping to see them at FOSS4G presentation here. Just now my colleague said that ESRI dropped out due to resource problem. Fantastic.. typical esri approach... take you to a point where you cant do anything and drop the bomb shell. There are 10,000 guys with that company and they have resource problem !!!!! Their person Sakish wrote to the list that they will participate in CCIP but not WMS.. how sweet. You want the fact? They saw the results of Geoserver and Mapserver and realized that ArcGIS server cant come close to that number.. so drop out... very simple... tell what every you feel like.. because everyone in the gis community is dumb and fool. They had installed the software to the machine, done everything.. but when it comes to doing the actual test that takes only 10 hrs in total.. they have resource problem !!!!!, thats after seeing GS and MS number... not before that. If you want to be competitive, then no company on earth has resource problem. Folks, wake up. If you see these guys, just shoot a point blank question at them. Ask for the truth. All what we want is the performance numbers, is this something difficult ? Dont we have the the right to know the performance before investing money in the software? In most cases, we have the responsibility of recommending the software for agencies .. why should one take the risk? -- Bruce NSW, Australia _______________________________________________ Tilecache mailing list [hidden email] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache _______________________________________________ Tilecache mailing list [hidden email] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache |
||||||||||||||||
Chris Tweedie
|
In reply to this post
by Bruce Foster
Bruce,
Lets set the record straight here. We were invited, but declined. There is nothing more to it. I will be at FOSS4G on Thursday and Friday on the CCIP booth. Swing by and I will sit down and show you whatever you seem to think we are hiding? The FOSS4G benchmarks are a great starting point and I would like to think we can be involved next year. I really hope customers do much more by way of due diligence in selecting enterprise software than just some benchmark results. Lets not forget that we are not the only ones not competing in the event. Mapguide, Deegree, Mapnik, Cubewerx, Mapinfo, Cadcorp, Manifold ... the list goes on (notice, there is no delineation between OS vs Commercial here). There is no conspiracy here mate and I'd be happy to show you. Look forward to seeing you next week. Regards, Chris Tweedie ERDAS Australia
|
||||||||||||||||
Christopher Schmidt-2
|
On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 10:01:28PM -0700, Chris Tweedie wrote:
> > Bruce, I appreciate the response, but I'd prefer (if we prefer to discuss rendering benchmarks, which aren't even all that useful once TileCache replaces direct access to your WMS) that we start a new thread that isn't based on bashing a number of proprietary products, and that we not put people on the defensive to start with. If someone is interested in discusisng performance metrics or benchmarks, the OSGeo-discuss list (instead of a cross post to half a dozen lists, half of which were completely unrelated to the topic) would be more appropriate. Best Regards, Christopher Schmidt > Lets set the record straight here. We were invited, but declined. There is > nothing more to it. > > I will be at FOSS4G on Thursday and Friday on the CCIP booth. Swing by and I > will sit down and show you whatever you seem to think we are hiding? > > The FOSS4G benchmarks are a great starting point and I would like to think > we can be involved next year. I really hope customers do much more by way of > due diligence in selecting enterprise software than just some benchmark > results. > > Lets not forget that we are not the only ones not competing in the event. > Mapguide, Deegree, Mapnik, Cubewerx, Mapinfo, Cadcorp, Manifold ... the > list goes on (notice, there is no delineation between OS vs Commercial > here). There is no conspiracy here mate and I'd be happy to show you. > > Look forward to seeing you next week. > > Regards, > > Chris Tweedie > ERDAS Australia > > > > Bruce Foster wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > My eyes went wide open when someone said that ESRI and ERDAS are > > participating in FOSS4G open WMS shootout or performance benchmarking. > > Knowing these two companies for the last 15 years, I just couldnt > > digest the fact. Well, things have changed ... thats what I thought. > > > > Then someone in the list wrote that Erdas is not participating.. Ah.. > > there comes the truth, I thought.. things cant be so much different. > > They can never tell you what the performance numbers but they have all > > the energy to tell the world that they are the fastest on earth > > (truly, thats what they claim). Thats like telling someone I have the > > fastest car on earth but will not tell you at what speed it goes or > > what millage it gives (in very very very tiny letters.. it say when > > you fix a rocket engine!!!). They have the budget to fool people but > > not to do the test and tell the numbers. Their WMS is not better than > > anyone else. > > > > Then our big brother, ESRI. I was hoping to see them at FOSS4G > > presentation here. Just now my colleague said that ESRI dropped out > > due to resource problem. Fantastic.. typical esri approach... take you > > to a point where you cant do anything and drop the bomb shell. There > > are 10,000 guys with that company and they have resource problem !!!!! > > Their person Sakish wrote to the list that they will participate in > > CCIP but not WMS.. how sweet. You want the fact? They saw the results > > of Geoserver and Mapserver and realized that ArcGIS server cant come > > close to that number.. so drop out... very simple... tell what every > > you feel like.. because everyone in the gis community is dumb and > > fool. They had installed the software to the machine, done > > everything.. but when it comes to doing the actual test that takes > > only 10 hrs in total.. they have resource problem !!!!!, thats after > > seeing GS and MS number... not before that. If you want to be > > competitive, then no company on earth has resource problem. > > > > > > Folks, wake up. If you see these guys, just shoot a point blank > > question at them. Ask for the truth. All what we want is the > > performance numbers, is this something difficult ? Dont we have the > > the right to know the performance before investing money in the > > software? > > > > In most cases, we have the responsibility of recommending the software > > for agencies .. why should one take the risk? > > > > > > -- > > Bruce > > > > NSW, Australia > > _______________________________________________ > > Tilecache mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/WMS-shootout-ESRI-and-ERDAS-tp3826002p3827350.html > Sent from the TileCache mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > Tilecache mailing list > [hidden email] > http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache -- Christopher Schmidt MetaCarta _______________________________________________ Tilecache mailing list [hidden email] http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache |
||||||||||||||||
Richard Orchard
|
Hello,
I am the product manager for Image Web Server (http://iws.erdas.com/). I would like to add to the information presented here. I am not particularly secretive about our performance - although i wouldn't necessarily give my "inside" information to a competitor, i am happy to share some results with you. I have the real joy in loving my product - it is fantastic! Although, some people here probably think the love goes a bit too far.... As an example: Intel Xeon E520 2 x Quad Core 2.5 GHz 8GB Ram RAID 5 Configuration 40GB OS partition; 1000GB data partition 15,000 RPM SCSI disks - yes, hard disks make a difference. Disk IO is a big "cost". Operating system: Win 2003 R2 SP2 64bit version. Performance numbers as far as WMS requests are concerned are largely dependent upon the type (size, compression) of imagery that is being served. So, taking a small blue Marble image, only about 2.6 GB uncompressed (i used an ECW file): 256 x 256 = 420 per second 800 x 600 = 92 per sercond If we want to up the size of the image, we can take a 2.1 Terabyte landsat image of the world. 256 x 256 = 351 per second 800 x 600 = 68 per sercond So - OK type numbers, and enough to sustain quite a large volume of people. A caveat would be that the machine i tested on was our demo machine (http://iws.erdas.com/) and i did not "un-plug" it from the world, so other requests were no doubt coming in. It also runs some other applications - so it probably could do "more" than this, but i was happy enough at the time, so i just left it at that. If we want to see "rediculous" performance, we can switch to ECWP. ECWP is a high-speed streaming protocol. ECWP is hard to "benchmark" because i need to get so many free client machines. Anyway, when i have gather XX number of client machines - each simulating hundreds of separate clients, we can simulate and respond to 5000 or more concurrent users. At the same time CPU usage only gets to ~20%. For the tile-cache enthusiasts out there, we have an "Optimized Tile Delivery" system. Same sort of "affect" but a different methodology. I wrote a couple of items about it: http://labs.erdas.com/blog_view.aspx?q=6071 http://labs.erdas.com/blog_view.aspx?q=6076 The reason why IWS didn't take part in the "shoot-out" was the requirement to use a linux operating system. We focus much more on Windows - although our Solaris version is quite well tested. Now - i would like to say that i am "signing" this information as correct and accurate. you have my word. But - if you want to try it for yourself, and you are genuine, you are able to download IWS from erdas.com and i will provide you a license and help you with the installation / setup. Best wishes, Richard Orchard http://iws.erdas.com/ |
||||||||||||||||
| Free Embeddable Forum Powered by Nabble | Help |
