[Benchmarking] Testing setup

Andrea Aime aaime at opengeo.org
Mon Aug 9 05:41:26 EDT 2010

Adrian Custer ha scritto:
> Projections:
>         (vector only?) EPSG:22662, Platte-Carré,    (no reproj)
>         EPSG:25831, UTM       (original, no reproj for raster)
>         EPSG:3857,  google    (reproj, no datum change)
>         EPSG:23031, UTM/ED50  (reproj, with datum change)
>         Lambert Conformal Conic, 60N,30N; 20East    (not mercator)

thanks for the summary. It all makes sense to me, I just have a couple
of concerns about the projections.

One is that they might too many and we should just pick 2, or at
most 3, to reduce the overall number of tests we're running.

This is based both on the amount of slides necessary to present and
discuss the test results, and the amount of time it takes to make
a full run, which is then to be multiplied by the number of
participating server (if experience is any indication everybody will
want to make a run the very last day allowed for testing, something
which is made likely by the fact we're late with the testing too).

The other is about the usage of EPSG:22662 as the "non reprojecting"
one. For the non reprojecting case I'd go for EPSG:4326 directly.
While I know it's not classically meant to be used for representation,
it has become common practice (e.g., NASA WMS-es do publish data almost
exclusively in EPSG:4326) and it guarantees the server is not
exercising the referencing subsystem at all, making it easier
to show what the real effect of the referencing subsystem is.


Andrea Aime
OpenGeo - http://opengeo.org
Expert service straight from the developers.

More information about the Benchmarking mailing list