On the hunt for some more benchmarks ..

Sourcing independant benchmarks or comparisons is always a difficult exercise. To continue on my recent raster benchmark quest, here are some other similar raster performance studies i’ve found round the interweb. If you know of any others, please throw them in the comments!

ESRI Image Server vs LizardTech Express Server

http://geoinfo1.lib.uidaho.edu/loadtest/ (June 2009)

Not much background info on the test setup in particular the input data … but the Pylot results are available and when compared produce a clear winner in LizardTech at all tests. The following are the throughput achieved at 50 user load. The average response times showed Express Server with ~0.5 sec average compared with ~2.5 seconds with Image Server.


Pursuit of the Perfect Digital Ortho File Format

http://www.igic.org/training/pres/conf/2009/perfectortho.pdf (February 2009)

Although again lacking specific reasoning on how they ran the tests., this one is more centered on desktop performance reading a variety of raster formats. There’s a couple of flaws with the support table, as ECW is in fact supported through Microsoft Office and likewise ESRI Image Server can also read the format after purchasing the required license from ERDAS. I would have liked Larry to list the resulting file sizes but his general consensus of running with 2 formats … Geotiff + JPEG compressed with ECW seems like a common conclusion. People seem to forget however that as soon as you introduce enterprise image serving capabilities, the output formats caters for the common request to be able to open in MS Paint or MS Word. I would love to see someone try to open a 700mb JPEG Compressed GeoTIFF in Paint without waiting a very, very long time :)

Overall though, ECW achieved very good performance in many of the tests with Geotiff winning some large scale tests, presumably when it was requesting 1 reasonably sized geotiff tile


3 thoughts on “On the hunt for some more benchmarks ..”

  1. I hold my judgment until I see complete explanation on how they setup the tests. Simple adjustments of pyramid levels can do wonders sometimes (this goes both ways)

    If you find more info, please share.

  2. Unfortunately I have no more info to share Segey but I agree that background on test setup is non-existant. I figure the tests were never meant to be found by Mr Google …

    If only there were some well documented benchmarks .. *hint hint nudge nudge* :)

Comments are closed.