A Comparison of Lossless Compression Algorithms for Altimeter Data
- 1CEA SPEC, Bat 772 F91191 Gif-sur-Yvette - France
- 2Subnet SAS, 21 av. de la belle image, 94440 Marolles-en-Brie - France
- 3Insa Rouen Normandie, 685 Av. de l’Université, 76800 Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray - France
- 4CNES, Centre Spatial de Toulouse, 18 avenue Edouard Belin, 31401 Toulouse, France
- 1CEA SPEC, Bat 772 F91191 Gif-sur-Yvette - France
- 2Subnet SAS, 21 av. de la belle image, 94440 Marolles-en-Brie - France
- 3Insa Rouen Normandie, 685 Av. de l’Université, 76800 Saint-Étienne-du-Rouvray - France
- 4CNES, Centre Spatial de Toulouse, 18 avenue Edouard Belin, 31401 Toulouse, France
Abstract. Satellite data transmission is usually limited between hundreds of kilobits-per-second (kb/s) and several megabits-per-second (Mb/s) while the space-to-ground data volume is becoming larger as the resolution of the instruments increases while the bandwidth remains limited, typically. The Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT) altimetry mission is a partnership between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Centre National des Études Spatiales (CNES) which uses the innovative KaRin instrument, a Ka band (35.75 GHz) synthetic aperture radar combined with an interforemeter. Its launch is expected for 2022 for oceanographic and hydrological levels measurement and it will generate 7 TeraBytes-per-day, for a lifetime total of 20 PetaBytes. That is why data compression needs to be implemented at both ends of satellite communications. This study compares the compression results obtained with 672 algorithms, mostly based on the Huff- man coding approach which constitute the state-of-the-art for scientific data manipulation, including Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). We also have incorporated data preprocessing such as shuffle and bitshuffle, and a novel algorithm named SL6.
Mathieu Thevenin et al.
Status: open (until 16 Feb 2023)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1094', Juan Antonio Añel, 13 Jan 2023
reply
Dear authors,Unfortunately, after checking your manuscript, it has come to our attention that it does not comply with our "Code and Data Policy" on many levels. Indeed, it should have never been published in Discussions before solving the issues listed below.https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/policies/code_and_data_policy.htmlFirst, the few code that you have shared is archived on GitHub. However, GitHub is not a suitable repository. GitHub itself instructs authors to use other alternatives for long-term archival and publishing, such as Zenodo. Therefore, please, publish your code in one of the appropriate repositories, and reply to this comment with the relevant information (link and DOI) as soon as possible, as it should be available for the Discussions stage. Also, please, include the relevant primary input/output data. In this way, you must include in a potentially reviewed version of your manuscript the modified 'Code and Data Availability' section, the DOI of the code (and another DOI for the dataset if necessary). Also, the GitHub repository does not contain a license. If you do not include a license, despite what you state, the code is not "open-source/libre"; it continues to be your property. Therefore, when uploading the model's code to Zenodo, you could want to choose a free software/open-source (FLOSS) license. We recommend the GPLv3. You only need to include the file 'https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt' as LICENSE.txt with your code. Also, you can choose other options that Zenodo provides: GPLv2, Apache License, MIT License, etc.Also, we can not accept that it is necessary to contact the authors or request permission to get access to code or data. Both kinds of assets must be published in a permanent repository without the ability of the authors to remove them, and this must be done before submitting the manuscript.In this way, you must reply to this comment with the link to the repository used in your manuscript, with its DOI. The reply and the repository must be available well in advance (as they should be already available) the Discussions stage is closed, to be sure that anyone has access to it for review purposes.Please, be aware that failing to comply promptly with this request will result in desk rejection of your manuscript for publication.Juan A. AñelGeosci. Model Dev. Exec. Editor
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Mathieu Thevenin, 26 Jan 2023
reply
Dear Juan,
Thank you for your comment.
We have carefully read the conditions about the codes used in the writing of the articles. Of course, we can provide most of the codes on a viable repository.
However the SL6 code code is under license which does not allow open source.
Unfortunately, we cannot provide all the codes allowing full reproduction of our study. Indeed, some codes and tools are not open source.We understand the importance of validating our work as well as possible. However, as you know, all the experiments are not necessarily reproducible, for questions of equipment, skills or even time; and I imagine that you do not limit your review to the basic thing.Now, our question is, is it possible to derogate from this rule for legitimate reasons ?Thank you for your reply and you interest in our work.Mathieu THEVENIN
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Mathieu Thevenin, 26 Jan 2023
reply
Mathieu Thevenin et al.
Mathieu Thevenin et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
114 | 52 | 8 | 174 | 3 | 2 |
- HTML: 114
- PDF: 52
- XML: 8
- Total: 174
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1