[Wps-discuss] WPS Benchmarking at FOSS4G 2014

[Fenoy Gerald]

Hello Benjamin,
I think it is a great idea to handle testings of the Execute request the way you described, by using a simple echo service.

By now for synchronous requests, the tests look like the following:

	• Test 1: value as JSON
	• Test 2: value as GML
	• Test 3: value as reference as GML
	• Test 4: same as test 3, result as reference
	• Test 5: value as reference as GML using POST request
	• Test 6: same as test 5, result as reference

And for asynchronous request, we have the following:

	• Test 1': value as reference as GML
	• Test 2': same as test 1, result as reference
	• Test 3': value as reference as GML using POST request
	• Test 4': same as test 3, result as reference

Personally, I think that the Test 1 and Test 2 should become unique now as there is no need for parsing any value from the service itself as it will simply return the value without any treatment. So we should use only the Test 2 for our next run.

I also suppose that we should multiply the number of tests as we will need to ask for each available outputs individually and all the possible combinaisons of them to also test this cases.

So, I would like to propose the following updates for the tests run for both synchronous and asynchronous requests. We run each individual test 7 times: first to have only once output at a time (so 3 tests), then to test all possible combinaisons of 2 outputs names (3 tests) and finally to have all the output returned (1 test).

I hope that you can confirm that I’m right thinking of this updates to the current tests. 

I’ve added one column to the table [1] listing all WPS team participating to write the name of the echo service when it will be available. 

Best regards,

[1] http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WPS_benchmark_2014#Available_infrastructure

Le 19 août 2014 à 16:03, Benjamin Proß <b.pross at 52north.org> a écrit :

> Dear all,
> 
> I see that there are still not all services are deployed on the test machine. I hope you guys are still on board.
> At 52°North we were thinking a bit about the execute tests.
> We do not yet have any results to compare but we think that benchmarking with "real" processes that compute something could falsify the results, as the computation in most cases is done by a underlying library (GeoTools in our case, but this could also be exchanged).
> So the results would be influenced by how fast the geo-computation lib would do its job. Not sure that we want that?!
> We also do not test whether the process really did its job (e.g. buffer the input geometry). So do we need to use "real" processes?
> We would propose to use an echo process that could have three inputs, Literal-, Complex- and BBoxData. The process then simply returns what it gets (input/output types would have to match).
> We would probably also need a asynchronous version that has a delay or something.
> That way we could test the input-/output handling capabilities (of all three data types) of the services and we would still test everything regarding execute that is tested right now (i.e. we would not loose functionality).
> Do you have any views on that?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Benjamin
> 
> -- 
> Benjamin Proß
> Software Engineer
> 52°North Geoprocessing Community
> 
> 52°North Initiative for Geospatial Open Source Software GmbH
> Martin-Luther-King-Weg 24
> Fon: +49-(0)-251–396371-42
> Fax: +49-(0)-251–396371-11
> b.pross at 52north.org
> http://52north.org/
> 
> General Managers: Dr. Albert Remke, Dr. Andreas Wytzisk
> Local Court Muenster HRB 10849
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wps-discuss mailing list
> Wps-discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/wps-discuss



Gérald Fenoy
http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/User:Djay

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 204 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/wps-discuss/attachments/20140821/350e3280/attachment.pgp>