Hi Peter, Thank you for the invitation. I have just registered, and am looking forward to working with you.
Best, Rob On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Peter Baumann < p.baum...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Hi Rob, > > excellent, now we are getting into technical discussion. > > I did not say that rasdaman is the best in the universe under all possible > constellations, but we do have both theoretical considerations and > practical results that suggest that rasdaman performs outstandingly well on > n-D arrays. > > Your offer to participate is very welcome, and timely. We have established > the RDA Array Database Assessment WG, and here we need as many volunteers > as possible to undertake this huge endeavour of getting reproducible > knowledge about the state of the art, best practices, etc. Here is the page: > https://www.rd-alliance.org/groups/array-database-working-group.html > > Participation is at no cost and open, same the results. Just register > yourself with RDA and let me know so that we canplan contributions. > > Looking forward to welcoming you on board, > Peter > > > > > On 05/15/2016 06:10 PM, Rob Emanuele wrote: > > Apologies for veering off topic. > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for citing your resources. Unfortunately I can't access the one > paper, since the only version I could find is behind a paywall, and the bar > chart you attached gives very little information; from these I cannot > understand the methodology or results. If you have more details I would be > happy to look further into this. > > My concern is with your wide sweeping statements, and the implication that > rasdaman has been scientifically verified to be more performant than any > other system in all cases. This to me feels hyperbolically similar to > measuring that a bowling ball falls faster than a piece of paper when > dropped from the roof of a building and concluding that trees are the > objects which fall most slowly towards the earth. > > For instance, I have doubts that those who had conducted the quoted > performance benchmarks set up the Apache Spark system in a way that > represents all potential configurations. I work on the GeoTrellis project > [1], which adds raster processing capabilities to Spark. I could for > instance imagine a system where raster data was stored in Accumulo, indexed > by GeoTrellis, and processed through Spark, which is very fast under many > query types. I won't make any assumptions on how fast as compared to other > systems, and it's very possible that rasdaman will beat out such a system > in a set of query types, or perhaps all queries. However, it is my opinion > that until the two systems were compared in such a way that everyone agreed > on on the methodology and the results, casually using the "fact" that one > system is "way faster" than the other system, and that one beats the other > "in all benchmarks" as an argument for some treatment from OSGeo (or for > any other purpose) deserves to be called into question, which I am doing > here. > > I'd be happy to collaborate to develop, out in the open and in front of > any paywalls, an objective system of measuring performance between systems. > At which point in time we could make proclamations like, "[whichever > framework], under [these specific query types], running on [however many > nodes, whatever type of hardware], storing [this amount] of [this type of > data], performs better than [some other framework] under the same > conditions". Until then, I object to your very broad statements of > superiority. > > Regards, > Rob > > [1] https://github.com/geotrellis/geotrellis > > On Sun, May 15, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Moritz Lennert < > mlenn...@club.worldonline.be> wrote: > >> On 15/05/16 14:40, Marco Afonso wrote: >> >>> Hi Anita, >>> >>> Aha! So there is a ponderation weight on software quality evaluation AND >>> project organization evaluation. >>> >>> So you can exclude an open source software with high quality if their >>> organization evaluation is low. >>> >>> For me that seems wrong. A software on a public repository is only >>> limited by it's licence terms, or unlimited at all. :) >>> >> >> But the discussion is not about whether the software should be in a >> public repository or not, or what the licence term should be. The >> discussion is about what the meaning of the "OSGeo project" label is. >> >> I don't think anyone has questioned the quality of the software, here. >> However, one of the aims of labeling a project an OSGeo project is to give >> a certain level of guarantee to potential users that this software >> _project_ respects a series of criteria that are considered important to >> ensure a long-term sustainability of that project. Putting one person's >> name in the statutes of a project and designating that person as the one >> who has ultimate decision rights (even if these decisions are always based >> on quality criteria), leaves the question of what would happen if that >> person lands under the proverbial bus. >> >> A more collective governance structure is seen by many as more >> sustainable in the long run. Similar debates have gone on for ages in >> Debian, for example, about team-based maintaining of packages vs individual >> maintainers. >> >> What I personally haven't really understood, yet, is what the rasdaman >> community is really afraid of. If the community works as well as described, >> why would the creation of a PSC-like structure create such problems ? >> >> Moritz >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Discuss mailing list >> Discuss@lists.osgeo.org >> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing > listDiscuss@lists.osgeo.orghttp://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > > > -- > Dr. Peter Baumann > - Professor of Computer Science, Jacobs University Bremen > www.faculty.jacobs-university.de/pbaumann > mail: p.baum...@jacobs-university.de > tel: +49-421-200-3178, fax: +49-421-200-493178 > - Executive Director, rasdaman GmbH Bremen (HRB 26793) > www.rasdaman.com, mail: baum...@rasdaman.com > tel: 0800-rasdaman, fax: 0800-rasdafax, mobile: +49-173-5837882 > "Si forte in alienas manus oberraverit hec peregrina epistola incertis ventis > dimissa, sed Deo commendata, precamur ut ei reddatur cui soli destinata, nec > preripiat quisquam non sibi parata." (mail disclaimer, AD 1083) > > > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
