ERDAS APOLLO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK ECW DELIVERY PERFORMANCE OF ERDAS APOLLO VERSUS ESRI ARCGIS FOR SERVER

Transcription

1 ERDAS APOLLO PERFORMANCE BENCHMARK ECW DELIVERY PERFORMANCE OF ERDAS APOLLO VERSUS ESRI ARCGIS FOR SERVER White Paper April 14, 2014

2 Contents Introduction... 3 Sample Dataset... 4 Test Hardware... 5 Summary... 6 Methodology... 7 Server Configuration... 7 Benchmark Configuration... 9 Results Response Time Hardware Performance ArcGIS for Server during load test APOLLO Essentials during load test Data Transfer Response Time Distribution Response time vs Users April 14,

3 Introduction This whitepaper aims to contrast the performance characteristics serving the Enhanced Compressed Wavelet (ECW) file format from ERDAS APOLLO against Esri ArcGIS for Server. Even when the storage format and hardware is identical, there are substantial differences in how geospatial server applications deliver this data from a performance point of view. Critical enterprise deployment questions include: Response time under low, consistent user load Response time under increasing user load Response time consistency Response time across various view sizes CPU & memory hardware utilization Bandwidth requirements Cost effectiveness All these concepts are addressed in the following sections by performance testing the OGC Web Map Service (WMS) interface common to both server platforms. April 14,

4 Sample Dataset Australia_Topographic_Map.ecw File type: ECW Image Dimensions: 146,105 x 122,280 px Gigapixels: 18 Projection: EPSG:4326 Cell size: degrees Structure: 3 Band, RGB UINT8 File size: 1,999,168 KB Figure 1 Dataset extents Figure 2 Native resolution sample April 14,

5 Test Hardware All performance metrics found in this whitepaper were performed on the following hardware. Data drive throughput, reported by ATTO Disk Benchmark (4QD) Warning: The intent of this whitepaper is to highlight peak performance of ERDAS APOLLO on given hardware, under specific, selected test plans. It should only be used as a relative guide when estimating any deployment, as characteristics will vary. April 14,

6 Summary ERDAS APOLLO Essen:als 2014 vs Esri ArcGIS for Server 10.2 Request size (px) APOLLO Essen5als ArcGIS for Server Requests / Second ERDAS APOLLO 2014 is 3.05x faster and more consistent at delivering the ECW file format than Esri ArcGIS for Server 10.2 with Hexagon Geospatial s ECW for ArcGIS Server installed. April 14,

7 Methodology Server Configuration 1. Configure entry level 4-core test server, PALE with the latest software releases 2. PALE represents: a. ArcGIS for Server 10.2 i. With ECW for ArcGIS Server 2014 b. APOLLO Essentials 2014 a. Windows Server 2008 R2 b. IIS Configure test dataset for ArcGIS for Server a. Add ECW data to ArcGIS for Desktop, add ECW > Publish to Server b. Enable WMS service capability i. Figure 3 - Publish ECW to ArcGIS for Server from ArcGIS for Desktop 4. Tune ArcGIS for Server to obtain highest throughput possible a. Test case proved the highlighted configuration to be preferred i. High isolation, 1->2 instances = 121ms average (default setting) ii. Low isolation, 1 instance, 8 processes = 157ms average iii. High isolation, 1->4 instances = 79ms average April 14,

8 5. Tune ECW for ArcGIS Server ECW cache a. A value of 10% yielded the highest throughput i. <SDKCacheSize>0.01</SDKCacheSize> b. 10% of 24GB total system memory adds ~240MB to each ArcSOC.exe. So we can estimate under load, each ArcSOC should not exceed 500MB 6. Configure test dataset for ERDAS APOLLO Essentials a. Connect to Server > Add Image b. Enable WMS Protocol > Press apply i. iws/ogc/wms? April 14,

9 Figure 4 ERDAS APOLLO Essentials administration console Benchmark Configuration 1. Three different test cases were identified. a. Random 600 x 600px WMS views with stepped user load up to 20 users. Time bound to 6 minutes b. Random 2048 x 2048px WMS views with consistent 2 user load. Request bound to 1000 requests c. Random 256 x 256px WMS views with consistent 10 user load. Request bound to 2. Generate random WMS extents across the dataset, maintaining aspect ratio and using all scales via the RandomWMS command line tool. Save output to CSV for use within test plans April 14,

10 Figure 5 - RandomWMS generating extents for 256 image size 3. Configure JMeter test plan to capture the three tests. See appendix for full JMX a. The stepping thread group used in the 600px test is defined in increments of 2 users, up to max of 20. b. Basic thread groups for the other two tests, with 2 threads and 10 threads respectively c. Configure HTTP Request Samplers to point to the relevant WMS end points to issue GetMap requests i. Using BBOX defined in the CSV Variables $(BOX) d. Configure relevant listeners to measure throughput and hardware utilization April 14,

11 4. Execute JMX test plan from remote load generator machine, connected via Gigabit Ethernet to the PALE server April 14,

12 Results Overview Label Requests Avg Min Max Std Dev Errors Throughput (req/sec) KB/sec Avg. Bytes ArcGIS Server 600px ArcGIS Server 2048px ArcGIS Server 256px APOLLO Essentials 600px APOLLO Essentials 2048px APOLLO Essentials 256px , , ,561 1,438, ,439 20, ,283 83, , , ,444 14,901 Response Time April 14,

13 Hardware Performance Both servers successfully met the expected 100% CPU utilization at 4 concurrent users ERDAS APOLLO Essentials substantial 256px test throughput can be clearly seen by the Disk IO counters ArcGIS for Server during load test Figure 6 ArcGIS for Server during load test with 4 processes April 14,

14 ERDAS APOLLO Essentials during load test Figure 7 ERDAS APOLLO Essentials during load test with 1 process April 14,

15 Data Transfer Response Time Distribution As highlighted by the result summary, ERDAS APOLLO Essentials shares a far smaller standard deviation which is clearly seen on the response time distribution chart above. Consistency is very important for baselining and defining performance criteria to more accurately plan and scale server deployments April 14,

16 Response :mes (ms) Average Response Time vs Users Users ArcGIS Server 600px APOLLO Essen5als 600px ArcGIS Server response time increases sharply once CPU Utilization reaches 100% at 8 concurrent users. While expected, the rate at which performance declines is far worse than ERDAS APOLLO Essentials which maintains a relatively linear, consistent trend ensuring more reliable performance can be assured under heavy load. Conclusion The substantial 300% performance advantage seen with ERDAS APOLLO can be attributed to: 1. ERDAS APOLLO architecture ERDAS APOLLO Essentials is a heavily optimized and multithreaded server. Unlike ArcGIS for Server that requires multiple processes to scale across CPU resources, ERDAS APOLLO utilizes just a single multi-threaded process to scale from 4 cores up to 32 cores which yields significant advantages including: Higher memory cache hits Lower memory requirements Lower disk I/O requirements No process duplication Shared resources across map services 2. ERDAS APOLLO hardware acceleration ERDAS APOLLO leverages additional CPU SIMD hardware acceleration above what s available within the core ECW JP2 SDK shared by both servers. These optimizations ensure ERDAS APOLLO can generate imagery quicker than ArcGIS for Server, or indeed any other image server platform, across the whole image processing pipeline. This includes JPEG generation, to reprojection warping and resampling. April 14,

17 3. ERDAS APOLLO Native C++ application ERDAS APOLLO is a native C++ application that provides direct communication with the IIS ISAPI handler on Windows, or Apache FastCGI on Linux. This direct access path removes unnecessary latency or complexity that is typically required within other server applications. For example within ArcGIS for Server, where there are multiple bridges between Web Adaptors, Java application servers, inter-process communications and process management required to manage child processes (ArcSOC.exe). 4. Hexagon Geospatial are the image compression and serving experts For over 15 years the ECW format and what is now the ERDAS APOLLO server platform have gone through continual improvement, and we constantly leverage our experience in this area to refine these solutions even further. Because we design and build both, we understand exactly how to architect a high performance image server while leveraging the core capabilities of the file formats including ECW. Despite the performance difference, the availability of ECW for ArcGIS Server continues to address the demand from existing users of ArcGIS for Server. While it will not represent the full performance capabilities of the format, it still offers improved performance for many Hexagon Geospatial customers. April 14,

18 About Hexagon Geospatial Hexagon Geospatial helps you make sense of the dynamically changing world. Known globally as a maker of leading-edge technology, we enable our customers to easily transform their data into actionable information, shortening the lifecycle from the moment of change to action. Hexagon Geospatial provides the software products and platforms to a large variety of customers through direct sales, channel partners, and Hexagon businesses, including the underlying geospatial technology to drive Intergraph Security, Government & Infrastructure (SG&I) industry solutions. Hexagon Geospatial is a division of Intergraph Corporation. For more information, visit Intergraph Corporation is part of Hexagon (Nordic exchange: HEXA B). Hexagon is a leading global provider of design, measurement and visualisation technologies that enable customers to design, measure and position objects, and process and present data. Learn more at Intergraph Corporation. All rights reserved. Intergraph is part of Hexagon. Intergraph and the Intergraph logo are registered trademarks of Intergraph Corporation or its subsidiaries. Hexagon and the Hexagon logo are registered trademarks of Hexagon AB or its subsidiaries. All other trademarks or servicemarks used herein are property of their respective owners. Intergraph believes the information in this publication is accurate as of its publication date. Such information is subject to change without notice. GEO US 0253A - ENG April 14,