1. Deutscher Wetterdienst DAR Metadata Catalog Markus Heene, DWD markus.heene@dwd.de

2. Page: 2DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Agenda  Welcome  Notes  Performance Test - Infrastructure  High level architecture –Geonetwork –terraCatalog  Performance Tests –Requirements –Preconditions –Results –Remarks  Resources

3. Page: 3DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Notes  The presented results are from May 2009  Both software solutions have released newer versions –Geonetwork 2.6 –terraCatalog 3.0  The findings of the Performance Study were made available to both

4. Page: 4DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Test - Infrastructure Tomcat 5.5 Oracle 10g Test client Application Server: CPU: 4 AMD Opteron 1800 MHz RAM: 9186716 kB

5. Page: 5DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Geonetwork: High level architecture  Geonetwork (version 2.2 and 2.4) –Servlet Container Main development for jetty (migration to other Servlet containers like Tomcat, OC4J possible) Geonetwork consists of 3 different web applications which could interact Different Frameworks used for the development: Jeeves, Struts, Spring, … For the next generation of Geonetwork a system architecture redesign is announced: remove Jeeves Framework (“Bringing data and metadata closer together”, FOSS4G2008 - Cape Town by Jeroen Ticheler) –Metadata handling Metadata XML file is stored as “large object” in Database (support for different vendors) Search is mainly based on lucene index outside of Database limited to varchar2(250) in basic installation Huge time necessary to build lucene index –Additional remarks Open source software Stable solution so far (migration to other Servlet container needs time) Version 2.2 implements only some queries of CSW Some Z39.50 support is available, currently only limited experiences inside DWD Production installation with up to 25.000 records are running (what we found)

6. Page: 6DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 terraCatalog 2.3: High level architecture  terraCatalog 2.3 –Servlet Container Main development for Tomcat (migration possible but not tried) terraCatalog consists of different web applications which could interact Consistent usage of frameworks through all web applications –Metadata handling Metadata XML file is stored in Database and “mapped” into relational model (database support for Postgresql and Oracle) Search is function of Database (Oracle Spatial and Text) Mapping into relational model cause conflicts with XML documents (e.g. title is limited to varchar2(255), same for abstract and keywords)  valid ISO-conform XML documents could not be imported into terraCatalog Oracle Spatial datatype could store only half of the world  special treatment necessary for whole globe  we found Oracle errors in certain situations –Additional remarks Commercial software with support Much more complete implementation of CSW compared to Geonetwork 2.2 No Z39.50 search functionality  additional investment necessary Production installation with up to 25.000 records are running We found some bugs – SQL Injection, Oracle errors, import of valid XML documents not possible, error in export metadata as XML document

7. Page: 7DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Tests - Requirements  Requirements based on WMO and INSPIRE  WMO (see WIS-TechSpec-8, DAR Catalogue Search and Retrieval, Technical Specification 1.1) –Response time < 2 sec –40 combined search (keyword and bounding box) per second –Minimum of 20 active sessions  INSPIRE –Response time < 3 sec –Minimum of 30 active sessions  DWD –Minimum of 100.000 metadata records

8. Page: 8DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Tests - Preconditions  Importing Metadata –Practical package size was 5.000 metadata records in an archive –Import costs a lot of time (5.000 records ~ 45 minutes – 60 minutes) –Importing metadata into terraCatalog generates GBs of redo-logs (200 MB per minute)  Formulate queries in CSW 2.0.2 –Challenge was to describe a query that both system understood (limited CSW implementation from Geonetwork 2.2) –Parameterize query for different result sets (e.g. search title for “zyx”  0 hits, search title for “gts”  136.511 hits)

9. Page: 9DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Tests - Results + (fulfilled),- (failed),o (partially)

10. Page: 10DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Tests - Results INSPIRE WMO + (fulfilled),- (failed),o (partially)

11. Page: 11DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Performance Tests - Remarks  Geonetwork fails to meet the requirement if the result set contains more than 10.000 hits (  response time scales with size of the result set)  Geonetwork installation with 140.000 metadata records –First access of the GUI takes minutes!  Geonetwork 2.2 deployment of web app with around 3000 metadata records costs hours  terraCatalog fails to meet the requirement for combined searches  terraCatalog could not meet the response time requirement for geographical searches  terraCatalog errors if the search touches the equator  Fuzzy search for title, abstract, keywords … is a nice feature  terraCatalog up to 60 times faster as Geonetwork in simple queries  Other solutions like geowaySDI.NODE are although tested only with 25.000 records  Currently it looks like that both systems are not capable to handle 140.000 metadata records according to the requirements of INSPIRE and WMO

12. Page: 12DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Resources  WMO Wiki: http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/WIS/wiswiki/tiki- index.php?page=geonetworkdochttp://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/www/WIS/wiswiki/tiki- index.php?page=geonetworkdoc  Geonetwork: http://geonetwork-opensource.org/http://geonetwork-opensource.org/  BlueNet: http://anzlicmet.bluenet.utas.edu.au/http://anzlicmet.bluenet.utas.edu.au/  con terra: http://www.conterra.de/http://www.conterra.de/

13. Page: 13DAR Metadata Catalog 24.09.2010 Q&A