Benchmark results for WLS

Are there any public benchmark results available for WLS ? I have a customer who wants to see how WLS scales. They want to see performance and benchmark results.
Can you PLEASE send me any reliable benchmark results.
Thank a million.

Michael,
I actually need some data to analyze. Please advise if BEA has anything like that.
Thanks
KK
"Jim Baiter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
But is there an actual benchmark study to refer to. I could
use this for some sizing of estimates - I don't need marketing
collateral.
"Michael Girdley" <[email protected]> wrote:
We scale very well. Our largest deployments number between 60-70+ CPUs:
http://www.bea.com/press/releases/2000/1004_planet_project_wls.html
Thanks,
Michael
Michael Girdley
BEA Systems Inc
"Kubo Kushi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:39f797e8$[email protected]..
Are there any public benchmark results available for WLS ? I have
a
customer who wants to see how WLS scales. They want to see performanceand
benchmark results.
Can you PLEASE send me any reliable benchmark results.
Thank a million.

Similar Messages

Benchmark Results for CS4, attn. Bill Gehrke

Bill (and others interested),
I have now tweaked my system a bit and done some simple benchmarking to see if I did it right. There is not yet a PPBM+ benchmark available to see how this system fares in comparison to others, but if you make it available for CS4, Bill, I will submit the data.
Anyway, here are the results for the time being:
b PassMark 7.0: 4338,1 (only second place due to Vista 64, which adds a 5-10% performance penalty in comparison to XP-32).
b Cinebench R10: 5670 single CPU / 22338 multi CPU / 5154 OpenGL.
b HDTach 3.0.4 long (32 MB): Single disk burst 233 / Avg 99, 2 disk raid0 burst 4275 / Avg 177, 8 disk raid30 burst 1045 / Avg 671.
This is a budget system with i7-920 @ 4.0 GHz, 12 GB RAM, ATI 4870 video, 150 GB boot Velociraptor, 2 TB Raid0 for pagefile/scratch, 2 x single disk 1 TB for audio, stock footage and export, and 8 TB Raid30 for media (Areca-ARC 1680iX-12 with 2 GB cache and BBM) plus 2 BR burners.
Bill, how are you coming along on the PPBM+ CS4 version?

Agreed up to a point. The raid controller, cache memory and BBM, which I would have wanted for any system, be it low budget, mid range or high budget, takes out an enormous heap. I could have gotten four i7 CPU's for that. If you add the disks as well, yes, it does get expensive. However, that investment may well outlive several generations of mobo's and CPU's and gives me your much coveted RAID30 array of effectively 6 TB (8 TB raw) and some more.
In the old days, people used to say that the system you wanted is around $ 5K. Nowadays when you want top-of-the-bill $ 5K is not enough; that is IMO a high budget system. A low budget system IMO at least for NLE is somewhere around $ 1-2K and medium is around the $ 2-4K bracket and anything higher than that is top material. That leaves my system in the medium bracket, nice, but not top-of-the-bill.

Anyone have Benchmark results for an older MBP?

I am thinking about ditching my 17" MBP ( 2.13 - 2GB - 120GB) for a newer model.
I am thinking about a fully tweaked 13" MBP (8GB, SSD, etc) or a built MBA.
How does the older models compare to the newer ones? Is there a score that can tell the difference, or is it just based on perception at this point?

Check this out: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?page=2979&q=macbook+pro

LiveCycle 8.2 benchmarking results?

1. Are there any benchmarking results for Livecycle 8.2 on Microsoft Windows Server(s)?
In particular for PDF Generation operations.
2. Assembler Service Documentaion states:
The Assembler service can assemble documents from one or more source documents. It supports several options for specifying source documents. Beginning with LiveCycle ES 8.2, the non-PDF documents can used as PDF source documents. Assembler service automatically converts such documents to PDF documents. The Assembler service performs the conversion by using the Generate PDF service. The PDFGenerationSettings element specifies conversion parameters.
Q2) What fraction of time is spent in conversion and merging, respectively?
Q3) What is an optimum workload for the assembler operation that does convert+merge?
Q4) What are the limits for LiveCycle 8.2 in terms of:
- max number of docs that can be converted and merged at one time
- max total size of docs to be converted and merged at one time
Thank you

Is there any particular reason why you are asking this in the Flash Player forum?

(268625273) Q WSI-29 Can you give any performance benchmarks for WLS web services?

Q<WSI-29> Can you give any performance benchmarks for WLS web services?
A<WSI-29>: It is very difficult to quantify performance aspects of web services
since they depend on so many variables including but not limited to: backend system
processing by stateless session beans and message driven beans, size of XML SOAP
message sent, system hardware (CPU speed, parallel processing, RAM speed) and
system software (JVM type and version of WebLogic server). However, let me point
out that the EJB backend processing of requests both have the best possible scalability
within the EJB2.0 specification (both stateless session and message driven beans
can be pooled) and servlets have a proven scalable track record. Thus it should
be possible to scale your web service deployment to meet demand. The overhead
in processing XML within the servlet can be significant depending on the size
of XML data (either as a parameter or a return type). While WLS6.1 does not have
any features to address this performance concern, WLS7.0 will feature Serializer
and Deserializer classes which can be dedicated to the XML to Java and Java to
XML translation (they can also be automatically be generated from a DTD, XML Schema
or regular JavaBean).
It is true that web services are not the fastest way to process client requests
but BEA is committed to making WebLogic server the fastest possible service provider.
Adam

see http://www.oracle.com/support/products/oas/sparc30/html/ows08811.html

Third party benchmarks for WLS

Does anyone have a reference for third party benchmarks for
WLS 5.1 or 6.0 vs other J2EE app servers?
Also performance of built-in WLS web server vs Apache or NES?
Thanks,
Eric Chiu

ed2345 wrote:
Easily done. See iTunes: How to set the play order of songs on an MP3 CD. Basically, if you sort the playlist by album, iTunes will burn the MP3 CD with album folders.
Thanks, that solves the second problem, which was the more pressing anyway.
Do you maybe also have an idea how to get rid of the number in front of the album title in the directory name?
Cheers, Robert

Benchmark Results BEA/JBOSS for Asynchronous Apps

Hi people,
here are results for the messaging benchmarks, for BEA and JBoss.
First, a little description of the scenario.
We decided for this simple scenario to benchmark :
PostingClient posts to Topic1.
MDB1 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic1, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic2.
MDB2 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic3.
MDB3 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic4.
MDB4 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic1.
and when the message is posted to topic1, MDB1 regets the message.
There is another listener on topic1 --> MonitoringClient.
MonitoringClient gets the messages arriving there, and reports the times the
message took between the 4 MDBs.
Summary : the messages sent into the EJB Server remain in there, and make
loops from MDB1 to MDB4 and back again, endlessly.
Hardware : Pentium II, 400 Mhz, 256 Megs of RAM.
OS : Windows NT4
VM : Sun 1.3
Benchmark Testing Series :
Weblogic Benchmarks:
VM : 64MB heapsize.
Configurations :
1) max-beans-in-free-pool : 50 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 6 (in the
entries in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml, for each of the 4 message beans)
2) max-beans-in-free-pool : 500 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 62
3) max-beans-in-free-pool : 2000 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 250
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximum time
waiting for crash 30 minutess)
On JBoss :
VM: 64MB heapsize.
Configurations:
(in jboss.xml)
1) container-invoker : maximumsize 50,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 50 minimumsize 6
2) container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 62
3) the maximum jboss could handle even with 128mb ram for the heapsize of
the VM was :
container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 100
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximum time
waiting for crash 30 minutes)
Results for Weblogic :
this server is very fast and stable. With 5000 Messages, we had a crash at
configuration 1, at 1800 Messages sent.
With configuration 2, it crashed at 3300, and with configuration 3 we had a
crash as early as with 500 messages - but that was due to the low heapsize
of the VM.
When we raised the heapsize to 128Megs, the server ran good with 10000
messages.
Sending times : we mesaured the times needed for a message to be sent
between to consecutive MDBs - for weblogic it was all around 0,1 secs.
At 10000 messages, average sending time was 1,4 seconds.
For 5000 messages, even with config 3, we had 0,8 seconds.
All other results were very acceptable, average times of 0.01 to 0.2.
If you need any more details, contact me.
JBoss :
config 3,2 : 3 seconds average with 50 messages.
Well, to be very honest : perhaps I m doing something fundamentally wrong,
and I dont know exactly what strategy JBoss is pursuing in its kind of
message delivery, but JBoss crashed at every config with 500 messages.
Average sending times at 50 messages were 3 seconds, regardless of the
configuration used, the parameters showed little or no effect.
I know that these parameters should tune throughput, I know, and I know that
with 4 topics and 4 MDBs, we are not simulating a true asynchrnously
designed application, meaning : with asynchronous components only.
But regardless of the throughput, no one wants to wait 12 seconds for a
response.
Even with 30 messages in the system, the average was 2 seconds, meaning 8
seconds in total to wait for a response : and this with only 4 asynchronous
components.
At 10 messages, we got average times of 0,7 seconds - meaning a response
time of 3 seconds in total, which could be acceptable.
It is also strange that weblogic showed significant CPU usage when
increasing the JMS load, while JBoss stayed very happy with around 10%, not
caring about any optimization in speed, it seems.
Have we forgotten any parameters to SPEED up sending times, message
delivery, or MDB invocation for JBoss ?
I am really wondering.
For precise details, contact me.
Best regards, Jubin Zawar

Hi Jubin,
Great Job done by you. Can have the results in Detail. It would be very help
full for me, I am working on something to load test my app though not ready
right now it will be soon ready.
Regards
LJS Narayana
"Jubin Zawar" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Hi people,
here are results for the messaging benchmarks, for BEA and JBoss.
First, a little description of the scenario.
We decided for this simple scenario to benchmark :
PostingClient posts to Topic1.
MDB1 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic1, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic2.
MDB2 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic3.
MDB3 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic4.
MDB4 (a message driven EJB) is listening on topic2, gets the message, puts
its time of receipt in the message, and sends it to topic1.
and when the message is posted to topic1, MDB1 regets the message.
There is another listener on topic1 --> MonitoringClient.
MonitoringClient gets the messages arriving there, and reports the timesthe
message took between the 4 MDBs.
Summary : the messages sent into the EJB Server remain in there, and make
loops from MDB1 to MDB4 and back again, endlessly.
Hardware : Pentium II, 400 Mhz, 256 Megs of RAM.
OS : Windows NT4
VM : Sun 1.3
Benchmark Testing Series :
Weblogic Benchmarks:
VM : 64MB heapsize.
Configurations :
1) max-beans-in-free-pool : 50 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 6 (inthe
entries in weblogic-ejb-jar.xml, for each of the 4 message beans)
2) max-beans-in-free-pool : 500 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 62
3) max-beans-in-free-pool : 2000 initial-beans-in-free-pool : 250
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximumtime
waiting for crash 30 minutess)
On JBoss :
VM: 64MB heapsize.
Configurations:
(in jboss.xml)
1) container-invoker : maximumsize 50,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 50 minimumsize 6
2) container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 62
3) the maximum jboss could handle even with 128mb ram for the heapsize of
the VM was :
container-invoker : maximumsize 500,maxmessages 1 - container-pool:
maximumsize 500 minimumsize 100
for each configuration we tested (with 1 KB messagesize):
50 msgs, 500 msgs, 5000msgs, and infinite (until server crash - maximumtime
waiting for crash 30 minutes)
Results for Weblogic :
this server is very fast and stable. With 5000 Messages, we had a crash at
configuration 1, at 1800 Messages sent.
With configuration 2, it crashed at 3300, and with configuration 3 we hada
crash as early as with 500 messages - but that was due to the low heapsize
of the VM.
When we raised the heapsize to 128Megs, the server ran good with 10000
messages.
Sending times : we mesaured the times needed for a message to be sent
between to consecutive MDBs - for weblogic it was all around 0,1 secs.
At 10000 messages, average sending time was 1,4 seconds.
For 5000 messages, even with config 3, we had 0,8 seconds.
All other results were very acceptable, average times of 0.01 to 0.2.
If you need any more details, contact me.
JBoss :
config 3,2 : 3 seconds average with 50 messages.
Well, to be very honest : perhaps I m doing something fundamentally wrong,
and I dont know exactly what strategy JBoss is pursuing in its kind of
message delivery, but JBoss crashed at every config with 500 messages.
Average sending times at 50 messages were 3 seconds, regardless of the
configuration used, the parameters showed little or no effect.
I know that these parameters should tune throughput, I know, and I knowthat
with 4 topics and 4 MDBs, we are not simulating a true asynchrnously
designed application, meaning : with asynchronous components only.
But regardless of the throughput, no one wants to wait 12 seconds for a
response.
Even with 30 messages in the system, the average was 2 seconds, meaning 8
seconds in total to wait for a response : and this with only 4asynchronous
components.
At 10 messages, we got average times of 0,7 seconds - meaning a response
time of 3 seconds in total, which could be acceptable.
It is also strange that weblogic showed significant CPU usage when
increasing the JMS load, while JBoss stayed very happy with around 10%,not
caring about any optimization in speed, it seems.
Have we forgotten any parameters to SPEED up sending times, message
delivery, or MDB invocation for JBoss ?
I am really wondering.
For precise details, contact me.
Best regards, Jubin Zawar

PI 7.1 Benchmark results

Hi,
now that PI 7.1 GA is getting nearer it would be interesting to see some real life benchmark results around performance when compared to PI 7.0 or XI 3.0.
Has anyone had the opportunity to run any as of yet or planning to do so? Would be very interested to see where and to what extent the much promoted improvements have increased the performance and be able to put these numbers in front of customers who are currently struggling with performance related issues on previous versions or who are not yet committed to PI due to uncertainty regarding the performance.
I've tried to search in the SDN for PI 7.1 benchmark results, but if such benchmarking exists I didn't manage to find it (if you have a link, please post it as a reply).
Cheers
Kalle

Hi,
/people/udo.paltzer/blog/2007/04/26/new-sap-netweaver-process-integration-release-planned-for-2007
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/304335f7-f33c-2a10-ae80-9c9ffdc86415
https://www.sdn.sap.com/irj/sdn/go/portal/prtroot/docs/library/uuid/00ffdb4d-e869-2a10-7688-891d7eea1b12
Regards
Agasthuri Doss

IMac i7 and i5 Benchmark results on Geekbench

Here are some recent Benchmark results of the new iMacs :
Core i7 : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=iMac+i7&commit=Search
core i5 : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/search?q=imac+i5&commit=Search
And the C2D High end @3.33 Ghz : http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/183324
The results may vary on your RAM, but it looks really good
The i7 average is about 45% better than the C2D, Good News !
And we can see that the difference between the i5 and i7 still remains the same, about 7-8%.
Enjoy your iMacs
Message was edited by: Floriferous
Message was edited by: Floriferous

I suspect in 2010, using multi-threading, Grand Central multi-cores, and even OpenCL GPU assist will help differentiate products. Those productivity apps (or utilities and games) that do support any or all new functionality will become more desirable than those that do not. This is clearly the future-proofing advantage that people see in buying the 2.7 GHz and 2.8 GHz quad core machines now; they may not be faster today than 3 GHz or 3.3 GHz Core 2 Duo in some things, but tomorrow is another story. Will be nice when Apple's Pro Apps such as Final Cut or even Aperture and Adobe CS's flagship products like Photoshop are tuned for these quad processor configurations. With six-core desktop processors on the horizon, even more pressure on vendors to do it right.

Slow System Performance! [With Benchmark Results]

Hello,
I've a MacBook Pro (mid 2011) 15" model with the following configuration:
Core i7 2.3 GHz
8GB RAM
256GB SSD
OS X Lion 10.7.2
(No 3rd party software installed expect GeekBench tool)
I ran the GeekBench tool and result is available here: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/498196
I primarily suspect SSD, since it's performance is not up to the mark. I would appreciate if anyone can provide me more info based on the SSD performance for the above result (link.)
Thank you!

I just ran X-Bench tool and compared it to Anandtech benchmark results (with the same SSD and tool types) and the screenshots are provided below:

BenchMarking Results

Do we have any Benchmarking results in Times ten? if yes can you share them please

Bonnie,
Have you found out how to integrate and deploy SPECjAppServer2002 on WLS 8.x?
- Debby

Benchmark Figures for Mobile Service Database

Dear SDN Community
We want to implement CRM Mobile Service and are looking for benchmark figures for the database size to support the database vendor decision.
We intend to replicate business partners and contacts by postal code, all products, service orders, price conditions, service confirmations, and enable van stock mgmt.
I know this is only high level - but we are looking for benchmark figures how to calculate the to be expected database size on the Client.
Every rough estimate is highly appreciated! Benchmark figures would be perfect!
Thanks very much
Christian

Hi,
we had the same request in an earlier MSV project but we couldn't get any (official) estimation tool from SAP product development which allows us to decide whether MSDB (resp. MSSQL Express Edition) is sufficient or not.
Anyway such a statement would be very risky because there are hundreds of parameters which could have an impact on the DB size. E.g. a single 5 MB attachment of a service order equates to thousands of BP or products (including conditions).
I would suggest to use the MSSQL 2005 Standard Edition in the Dev and QA environment and simulate the effective data volume with reasonable test data there.
Also you should try to minimize the data volume (and transfer) by using suitable filter criteria (especially for the product master incl. conditions). Service orders and confirmations can be revoked from the Mobile clients after they are closed by using according status filters. BP can be replicated by using an interlinkage order -> BP in order to optimize the BP amount on the laptops. The attachment maximum size can be defined in customizing.
Also note that running the Mobile sites in unicode mode could cost you up to 100 % more DB space.
Finally there are some important notes which refer to tools for DB administration (defragmentation, reorganization).
I suppose you will have a proper result concerning the needed DB size on the laptops after you have done these configuration steps and observations in the QA enviroment.
Regards,
Wolfhard

Batch Characteristic not updating with result for linked MIC

Hi,
I have created a MIC and linked to a batch characteristic i.e. potency and included the characteristic in a specific batch class. This MIC is part of the inspection plan for a certain material.
If I generate a lot of origin 01 and 09 for the material and record a result for the MIC and apply a UD, the batch characteristic is not updated with the result recorded in the batch master record..
If I generate a lot origin 89 for the same material, when the result is recorded for the MIC and apply a UD the batch characteristic is updated with the mic value in the batch master record.
Can you help regards?

Ok. I am a little bit further.
I put a trace (ST05) on the result recording and I find a difference between 4.7 and ECC6.0.
In ECC6.0 I've an deletion in table "AUSP". This deletion isn't performed in the 4.7 system.
Hope that this can help to solve my problem.
Regards,
René
@ Mayank
Above, all the master data and customizing is mentioned to transfer the result to the batch classification
Edited by: Rene Fuhner on Jul 30, 2010 7:03 PM

Found 0 results for When I open Firefox I get a "Well this is embarrassing" message. Makes no difference if I click on "Start a new session" or "Restore", it crashes. Then I get a "crash report" which apparently goes nowhere. I have uninstalled and reinst

Found 0 results for When I open Firefox I get a "Well this is embarrassing" message. Makes no difference if I click on "Start a new session" or "Restore", it crashes. Then I get a "crash report" which apparently goes nowhere. I have uninstalled and reinstalled twice with the same result, what do I do to restore Firefox?
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== Last week when I opened Firefox.

The crash reporter doesn't appear to be working...Here are the details that were contained in the report:
Add-ons: {0538E3E3-7E9B-4d49-8831-A227C80A7AD3}:0.9.10.2, :3.63,{972ce4c6-7e08-4474-a285-3208198ce6fd}:3.6.3
BuildID: 20100401064631
Comments: I get an error message, " well, this is embarrassing"..and Firefox crashes
CrashTime: 1274739017
EMCheckCompatibility: true
Email: [email protected]
FramePoisonBase: 00000000f0dea000
FramePoisonSize: 4096
InstallTime: 1270304892
ProductName: Firefox
ReleaseChannel: release
SecondsSinceLastCrash: 2699
StartupTime: 1274738966
Theme: classic/1.0
Throttleable: 1
Vendor: Mozilla
Version: 3.6.3
This report also contains technical information about the state of the application when it crashed.

Highly frustrated with Outlook 2013 Search People box bugs - Multiple Name Results for Same Contact & Inconsistent Results

The Outlook 2013 "Search People" box does not function properly. It frequently displays incorrect results or a mess of duplicate results. I've reported previous issues about this and consolidating my posts into one (with screenshots this
time). Hopefully this message will be forwarded to or seen by the Outlook programmers. It really needs to be fixed.
Outlook 2010 and other prior versions worked perfectly. You search for name, you get ONE result with the info you're looking for. FAST AND EASY. But with Outlook 2013 Microsoft has created a heck of a mess resulting in huge frustration and productivity loss
with such simple but important tasks.
I have hundreds of contacts stored in my Outlook address book, and they all have COMPLETE contact info added.
One major issue that I'm experiencing in the new Outlook 2013 is that I now get average of 4 or more duplicate name results appearing for the same contact. And each result contains different and incomplete contact info, making it impossible for me to quickly
find the basic info I'm looking for. The cause of this issue is that Outlook 2013 now provides results from not only your local address book(s), but it also shows results based on your email history and social media accounts setup.
And there's no way to turn this off, or at least specify what folders and/or accounts the People Search box should use.
To make matters worse, the Microsoft developers conveniently forgot to add some form of an indicator (like a small icon besides each name result in the list) that clearly indicates what result is from what source. So you must manually click on each
result one at a time and repeat the search until you locate the correct one.
For one specific example, I have a contact stored in my local address book called
Infusionsoft. When I type "Infusionsoft" in the People Search box to quickly find a phone number, Outlook 2013 shows me 7 results with the same name. See the screenshot below:
As you can see in the screenshot above, every result just says "Infusionsoft", so I have to manually click on each name result one at a time and repeat the process until I find the correct one from my address book. This same thing happens with other
random contacts.
From what I can tell, Outlook is pulling results based on based on recent emails I've received from different people with "@infusionsoft.com" in their email address. So the first result shows "[email protected]" (just the email
address), the second result shows "[email protected]", the third result shows "[email protected]" and so forth. I don't want Outlook to show all of that. I just want what's in my address book!
And you would think that the last result would be the correct one from my address book, but no. Sometimes its the 5th result, and other times it's the 3rd or 7th result. So there's no freaking order of things here.
We simply need the ability to turn off searching of email history and other accounts when using the People Search box. Problem fixed.
(And please don't tell me that I need to "link" every incorrect result to one main contact. You shouldn't expect everyone to have to tediously link any and all results that appear to a record. ESPECIALLY when 5+ results for each contact appear regularly.)
ISSUE 2: Some names must be typed in a different way for the Search People to locate them
Another big issue I'm having with the Search People box is that some name searches don’t show the correct result, unless I search for their names in a different way.
For one specific example, I have a contact stored in my address book named "Dave Johnson". When I type "Dave Johnson" in the Search People box, one result appears, but it's just his email address, only. It's not the result that's stored in my Outlook address
book with his phone number, addresses, etc. Screen shot below:
If I type in Dave's name reverse order (Johnson Dave), no results are found at all.
Now if I just type in just"Johnson" all by itself, it finds Dave's correct result (the one stored in my Outlook Address Book). Along with everybody else that has "Johnson" in their name (see screenshot below)...
I double-checked how I have Dave's name programed in my address book, and it's in there as "Dave Johnson" for both the Full Name and File As fields.
Also, the name order shouldn't make any difference when using the People Search Box anyway. Sometimes I can find people by Last Name, First Name or First Name, Last Name. Only with random contacts does it get difficult finding their info and
I have to do strange things like this to find them from the People Search box.
ISSUE 3: Some Search People results only yield an email address only.
For other random contacts, some search results only yield an email address with no other contact details. But I can open the persons contact card from the address book manually, with the same email address shown! Screenshot below...
In the screenshot above, I have outlined the Search People box results in red, and the Address Book results in green. You can clearly see that "Robert White" is a contact stored in my local address book with full contact details, but the Search People result
only shows his email address! Again, it's not consitent. It's hit or miss with different people.
ISSUE 4: Some results just don't appear at all, but they are in the address book
Another issue I'm experiencing with the People Search Box is that some people simply cannot be found. But I can see their contact info just fine if I click on the "People" tab down at the bottom of the page and type in their name in the "Search Contacts"
field. Why can't the People Search box find certain people? I opened up their contact details and cannot find a single thing that would prevent them from showing up in results.
These are clearly serious bugs that need to be fixed. And I'm shocked as to how this got missed--or ignored during alpha and beta testing. I see the "idea" behind the developers having the Search People box search everything outside of the
address book, but in real world application this causes a heck of a lot of problems & confusion, and it needs to be fixed ASAP.
For technical details, I have Outlook 2013 running on two computers using hosted Exchange 2010. One system is Windows 7 and other is Windows 8. The same problems occur on BOTH computers. As far as my Outlook account setup, I have all contacts stored in the
main address book (no sub-folders or other folders).
Can someone help communicate this message to the Outlook developers??? The "Frown" button limits me to 100 characters and one image. There's no way I can communicate this level of detail and steps to duplicate in 100 characters!

Thanks for your reply.
1) The instant search boxes in each individual page work just fine. If I am on the People page and type in a name in the "Search Contacts" field, it searches my contacts and displays the results that I want. But I should not have to leave whatever screen
I'm in to find people now. In Outlook 2010 and earlier versions, I could be on the calendar page and then search for a contact without clicking off the calendar completely. For productivity-sake, it's a huge waste of time and hassle now.
2) I'm familiar with how contact linking works, and quite frankly it's a huge mess in general. I NEVER create multiple contacts for the same person. I get that Outlook 2013 get confused now when it detects a LinkedIn or Facebook account for the same person
already in my Outlook address book, but we need to have options that allow us to turn off results from some or all social networks. This is a big part of the problem.
Think about it this way - The average person has 150+ LinkedIn connections, and more for Facebook. Many people today have accounts for both and they are setup with the same email address. When Outlook 2013 has to scan all the networks IN ADDITION to your
local address book(s), it's a no brainer that it can get very confused trying to display results.
Another big part of the problem is that Outlooks new search system also scans your email history. I receive emails from people who use multiple email addresses, or emails from companies with multiple reps or ticket systems that send you a unique
ticket ID # ending in the same email address domain. Now Outlook displays people search results based on everything under the sun in my email history. This is beyond frustrating (see my "Infusionsoft" screenshot above in the first post).
Again, I want to stress that for the search examples I referenced, I only have one entry in my Outlook address book for each person. And that's all I want to find when I search for people--what's already in my own address book!
In summary:
We need an OPTION to turn off searching external networks when using the People Search box
We need an option to tell Outlook to not scan email history for people search results (I think this needs to be disabled entirely actually. It's not helpful at all)
There should be a fixed priority for displaying people search results, with local address book results FIRST, followed by social network results.
There should be a clear icon/indicator next to each result that gives you a clue as to where the result is coming from. Your address book? Facebook? LinkedIn? We should not need to click on each result to get a hint as to where it's coming from.
Work out the bugs in general with the new search system.
One other thing that I didn't mention is that the Search People box also shows results for people I'm not even "friends" or connected with on the different social networks. But I've noticed that some people use the same email address for those networks that
I already have programmed for them in my address book, which is why Outlook sometimes shows me these results. Does that make sense?
I'll try rebuilding the index, but after testing Outlook 2013 on 3 different machines so far and seeing the same results (all slightly different results on each machine and very inconsistent), I doubt this will address the issue.

Benchmark results for WLS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for