INFOCOMP 2011
Impact of User Concurrency in Commonly
Used OGC Map Server Implementations
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Used O...
Introduction
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Introduction
Three Steps for Disaster Management
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
GEO-PICTURES is an EC
FP7 SPACE project with the aim of
int...
Rapid Mapping and Technology
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
The images
22 satellite images of GeoEye-1 (Orthorectified
GeoTIFF; provided by Google)
(http://www.google.com/relief/hait...
Diapositiva 5
pdiaz4 Al Web de descàrrega posa:
By downloading these files, you agree to use the imagery solely for non-co...
The service
We are going to test implementations of two standards:
Web Map Service (WMS) standard
INFOCOMP 2011
October 20...
Web Map Service
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
This is a map
Web Map Tile Service
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
This is a tile
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Methodology
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Methodology
The analysis
Servers ClientsStandardsData
Web Map Service
(WMS)
Web Map Service
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Web Map Service...
Traditional WMS server-client interaction
WMS
Server
reques
t GetMap
URL
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
respon
se
All studied ...
Results
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Results
Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server
WMS
Server
req
GetMap
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
WMS Server Serve...
Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server
More than one hundred different requests were
done (without optim...
Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server
Response time of 5 different server vendors at different scales (...
Evaluation of a Cluster of Servers
To overcome the performance degradation in
concurrent requests a possible solution is t...
Evaluation of a Cluster of Servers
EvaluationoftheresponsetimeforPixelSize(ClientstoMiraMonSingleServer)
60.0
80.0
100.0
1...
Tiling the Request and the Response: Sequential
WMS
Server
req
GetMap
req
GetMap
req
GetMap
req
GetMap
req
GetMap
INFOCOMP...
Tiling the Request and the Response
Some WMS clients are able to tile the space in a regular matrix of small
pieces.
They ...
Tiling the Request and the Response: Sequential
Results of the WMTS speed metrics
Time response for sequential 256x256 til...
Tiling the Request and the Response: Concurrent
WMS
Server
req
GetMap 1req
GetMap 2req
GetMap 3req
GetMap 4req
GetMap 5
IN...
Tiling the Request and the Response:Concurrent
Results of the WMTS speed metrics
Time response for sequential 256x256 tile...
Tiling the Request and the Response: Semi-concurrent
Results of the WMTS speed metrics
Time response for sequential 256x25...
Conclusions (1/2)
The work presented covers:
A metrics on WMS and WMTS services
GeoServer, MapServer, MiraMon Map Server, ...
Diapositiva 25
p2 HE FET DUES OPCIONS PER A LA DIAPO 1/2 DE CONCLUSIONS, UNA MÉS DENSA I L'ALTR AMOOLT MÉS LLEUGERA. TAMBÉ...
Conclusions (2/2)
In order to improve performance, some clients request tiles to servers that are not
prepared to serve th...
Thank you!
INFOCOMP 2011
October 2011
Thank you!
joan.maso@uab.cat
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Impact of user concurrency in commonly used OGC map server implementations

248 views
192 views

Published on

Masó, J., Díaz, P., Pons, X., Monteagudo, J.L., Serra, J., Aulí, F., (2011). Impact of user concurrency in commonly used OGC map server implementations, en: Proceedings of INFOCOMP. Barcelona, October 2011. ISBN: 978-1-61208-161-8.

Published in: Internet
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
248
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impact of user concurrency in commonly used OGC map server implementations

  1. 1. INFOCOMP 2011 Impact of User Concurrency in Commonly Used OGC Map Server Implementations INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Used OGC Map Server Implementations Joan Masó, Paula Díaz, Xavier Pons, José L. Monteagudo-Pereira, Joan Serra-Sagristà, Francesc Aulí-Llinàs Center of Research in Ecology and Forestry Applications Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona
  2. 2. Introduction INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Introduction
  3. 3. Three Steps for Disaster Management INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 GEO-PICTURES is an EC FP7 SPACE project with the aim of integrating satellite imagery with in-situ sensors and geo-tagged images as a tool for decision making in emergency crisis
  4. 4. Rapid Mapping and Technology INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011
  5. 5. The images 22 satellite images of GeoEye-1 (Orthorectified GeoTIFF; provided by Google) (http://www.google.com/relief/haitiearthquake/geoeye.html) Covering Port-au-Prince INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Covering Port-au-Prince and surroundings 16-01-2010, 3 days after the Earthquake Each image has 196 373 kb 4.21 Gb 40 994x57 392 pixels pdiaz4
  6. 6. Diapositiva 5 pdiaz4 Al Web de descàrrega posa: By downloading these files, you agree to use the imagery solely for non-commercial use related to emergency relief, and to provide a proper and distinct photo credit to “GeoEye Satellite Image.” Això significa que hem de posar el logo de GeoEye a la presentació? pdiaz; 13/10/2010
  7. 7. The service We are going to test implementations of two standards: Web Map Service (WMS) standard INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Web Map Tile Service (WMTS) standard Both standards are Open Geospatial Consortium standards Assess performance
  8. 8. Web Map Service INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 This is a map
  9. 9. Web Map Tile Service INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 This is a tile
  10. 10. INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011
  11. 11. Methodology INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Methodology
  12. 12. The analysis Servers ClientsStandardsData Web Map Service (WMS) Web Map Service INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Web Map Service Cache (WMS-C) Tile Map Service (TMS) Tile Map Tile Service (WMTS)
  13. 13. Traditional WMS server-client interaction WMS Server reques t GetMap URL INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 respon se All studied protocols request maps by creating an URL with specific syntax http://www.ogc.uab.es/cgi-bin/SIGMA/MiraMon5_0.cgi?VERSION=1.1.0& REQUEST=GetMap&SRS=EPSG:27573&BBOX=532776,22819,538776,26419& WIDTH=600&HEIGHT=360&LAYERS=mh-andorra&STYLES=&FORMAT=image/gif&TRANSPARENT=TRUE URL requests were randomly generated and sent from different clients The time response is stored in logs and latter analyzed
  14. 14. Results INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Results
  15. 15. Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server WMS Server req GetMap INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 WMS Server Server res
  16. 16. Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server More than one hundred different requests were done (without optimizing speed configurations). The influence of the pixel size and the image size in INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 The influence of the pixel size and the image size in the time response were evaluated The requests were made from up to 5 concurrent clients. The time response for the requests are exposed in graphs.
  17. 17. Evaluation of WMS Concurrent Requests to a Single Server Response time of 5 different server vendors at different scales (pixel sizes) each one under 5 simultaneous requests 10.000 MapServer GeoServer MiraMon Server ArcGIS Server Express Server INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 0.010 0.100 1.000 0.0001 0.0010 0.0100 0.1000 1.0000 10.0000 100.0000 Pixel Size (seconds of arc) Time(seconds)
  18. 18. Evaluation of a Cluster of Servers To overcome the performance degradation in concurrent requests a possible solution is to set up a cluster of servers INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 cluster of servers The cluster of servers act as a virtual single server 6 computers are able to respond at same time to different clients as if they were like a faster single server
  19. 19. Evaluation of a Cluster of Servers EvaluationoftheresponsetimeforPixelSize(ClientstoMiraMonSingleServer) 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 Time(milliseconds) 17clients 14Clients 11Clients 8Clients 4Clients 1Client INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 EvaluationoftheresponsetimeforPixelSize(ClientstoMiraMonServerCluster) 0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0 140.0 160.0 180.0 0.0000 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000 12.0000 14.0000 16.0000 PixelSize(secondsofarc) Time(milliseconds) 17clients 14Clients 11Clients 8Clients 4Clients 1Client 0.0 20.0 40.0 0.0000 2.0000 4.0000 6.0000 8.0000 10.0000 12.0000 14.0000 16.0000 PixelSize(secondsofarc)
  20. 20. Tiling the Request and the Response: Sequential WMS Server req GetMap req GetMap req GetMap req GetMap req GetMap INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Server
  21. 21. Tiling the Request and the Response Some WMS clients are able to tile the space in a regular matrix of small pieces. They need several tiles to cover the whole viewport They can recycle some tiles when the user moves the view laterally INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 They can recycle some tiles when the user moves the view laterally Also can take advantage of the cache mechanisms If the caching mechanism cannot help the response time can increase even if each tile is smaller that the whole view Tiled clients (tiles of 256x256 pixels) were simulated in three configurations.
  22. 22. Tiling the Request and the Response: Sequential Results of the WMTS speed metrics Time response for sequential 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server 10 MapServer GeoServer Tilecache INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 0.01 0.1 1 0.00090.00100.00240.00290.00510.00760.01020.01450.01880.02460.03310.04620.18550.21300.26540.47170.56701.03831.6425 seconds of arc Seconds(time) Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache Sequential tiled WMS
  23. 23. Tiling the Request and the Response: Concurrent WMS Server req GetMap 1req GetMap 2req GetMap 3req GetMap 4req GetMap 5 INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Server
  24. 24. Tiling the Request and the Response:Concurrent Results of the WMTS speed metrics Time response for sequential 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server 10 MapServer GeoServer Tilecache Time response for unlimited concurrent 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server 10 MapServer INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 0.01 0.1 1 0.00090.00100.00240.00290.00510.00760.01020.01450.01880.02460.03310.04620.18550.21300.26540.47170.56701.03831.6425 seconds of arc Seconds(time) Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache Sequential tiled WMS Concurrent Tiled WMS 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.00090.00110.00270.00490.00760.01100.01590.02450.03310.06270.19150.23480.47170.57451.1730 seconds of arc Seconds(time) GeoServer Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache
  25. 25. Tiling the Request and the Response: Semi-concurrent Results of the WMTS speed metrics Time response for sequential 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server 10 MapServer GeoServer Tilecache Time response for unlimited concurrent 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server 10 MapServer Time response for up to 4 concurrent 256x256 tiled requests on a pure WMS server INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 0.01 0.1 1 0.00090.00100.00240.00290.00510.00760.01020.01450.01880.02460.03310.04620.18550.21300.26540.47170.56701.03831.6425 seconds of arc Seconds(time) Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache Sequential tiled WMS Concurrent Tiled WMS 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.00090.00110.00270.00490.00760.01100.01590.02450.03310.06270.19150.23480.47170.57451.1730 seconds of arc Seconds(time) GeoServer Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache Semi-concurrent Tiled WMS 0.01 0.1 1 10 0.00090.00110.00270.00490.00760.01100.01590.02450.03310.06270.19150.23480.47170.57451.1730 seconds of arc Seconds(time) MapServer GeoServer Tilecache MMServer ArcGIS Server Express Server GeoWebCache
  26. 26. Conclusions (1/2) The work presented covers: A metrics on WMS and WMTS services GeoServer, MapServer, MiraMon Map Server, ArcGIS Server, Express Server TileCache GeoWebCache A set of recommendations of Disaster Management Easy to setup: MapServer INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Easy to setup: MapServer Easiest configure and update: GeoServer Fastest: Express Server The speed tests described are a practical demonstration of the suitability of certain servers and service configurations in certain domains where reliability of services is imperative We have seen differences in performance of 2 order of magnitude. All the analyzed servers have slower performances when the number of simultaneous clients is increased A cluster of server dramatically improves performance p2
  27. 27. Diapositiva 25 p2 HE FET DUES OPCIONS PER A LA DIAPO 1/2 DE CONCLUSIONS, UNA MÉS DENSA I L'ALTR AMOOLT MÉS LLEUGERA. TAMBÉ POTS COMBINAR LA LLEUGERA 1/2 AMB LA 2/2 QUE TROB QUE ÉS DENSA PERÒ QUE ÉS LA QUE VAREM FER A VENÈCIA. p.diaz; 25/10/2011
  28. 28. Conclusions (2/2) In order to improve performance, some clients request tiles to servers that are not prepared to serve them This results on no better performance in some servers Server optimization for tile requests is needed. Web clients auto-impose themselves a limit in the number of parallel request INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Web clients auto-impose themselves a limit in the number of parallel request We saw that this more conservative strategy results on better performance MapServer and GeoServer with common open source services that do not require any data preparation process but their performance is worst than other services that require indexing methods like MiraMon Map Server MapServer (based on C++ code) performs better than GeoServer (based on Java code) under single client requests, but GeoServer is surprisingly faster under concurrent simultaneous requests.
  29. 29. Thank you! INFOCOMP 2011 October 2011 Thank you! joan.maso@uab.cat

×