Performance Comparisons

I ma looking for performance comparisons of WebLogic Server on Sun server compared
to an Intel server. I am looking for the number of transactions per second that
can be processed on say a 4-way Wintel server as opposed to a Sun UE or, better
yet, a SunFire 280. Can anyone provide me with this information or point me towards
a source where I can find it?
Thanks!
Greg

Greg Wojtak wrote:
>
I ma looking for performance comparisons of WebLogic Server on Sun server compared
to an Intel server. I am looking for the number of transactions per second that
can be processed on say a 4-way Wintel server as opposed to a Sun UE or, better
yet, a SunFire 280. Can anyone provide me with this information or point me towards
a source where I can find it?
Thanks!Good question in my opinion ... but this is
a more generel question to java between Solaris and
Wintel ..
But seems you have an 4 Processor Intel Box ..
and only a two processor Solaris Box ..
and also the Ultra III processor have a by
far lower taktrate , right ?
The result should be obvious ..
The more generell question is, whether
the Java-Threads can ran so nice on
all processors, as they do on Solaris ..
and also whether you have so much memory
as you can have under Solaris ?
The Thread handling is still totaly different
under Windows and Solaris .. Wintel makes a times
sliced scheduling between the threads .. and
Solaris uses still the concept of LWPs which
are managed by the kernel .. not the threads
themselved are scheduled by the kernel ..
I recently heared during a SUN talk that SUN thought now, that
the overhead in the kernel for the scheduling in not longer
too high .. and they provide in the upcomming Solaris 2.9
a new thread modell which does the scheduling inside of
the kernel ..
I would assume, that a heavy threaded application performs
better on Solaris .. but this is only an assumption ..
I never had the time to measure this ..
Good luck !
Frank

Similar Messages

Performance comparisons of DES and AES

Hi,
Has anyone gathered data in regards to performance comparison of AES vs DES using the JCE in java?
I would be interested in finding which is faster.
Thanks,
Dan

Oh, sorry by the truncated table. I've pasted an abridged version of the "openssl speed" output.
I will paste the unabridged version of "openssl speed des" output (openssl is a C crypto toolkit, not a Java toolkit).
To get the most accurate results, try to run this
program when this computer is idle.
First we calculate the approximate speed ...
Doing des cbc 20971520 times on 16 size blocks: 20971520 des cbc's in 8.11s
Doing des cbc 5242880 times on 64 size blocks: 5242880 des cbc's in 7.97s
Doing des cbc 1310720 times on 256 size blocks: 1310720 des cbc's in 7.86s
Doing des cbc 327680 times on 1024 size blocks: 327680 des cbc's in 7.78s
Doing des cbc 40960 times on 8192 size blocks: 40960 des cbc's in 7.24s
Doing des ede3 6990506 times on 16 size blocks: 6990506 des ede3's in 6.33s
Doing des ede3 1747626 times on 64 size blocks: 1747626 des ede3's in 6.31s
Doing des ede3 436906 times on 256 size blocks: 436906 des ede3's in 6.27s
Doing des ede3 109226 times on 1024 size blocks: 109226 des ede3's in 6.26s
Doing des ede3 13653 times on 8192 size blocks: 13653 des ede3's in 6.08s
OpenSSL 0.9.7d 17 Mar 2004
built on: Thu Apr 22 13:21:37 2004
options:bn(64,32) md2(int) rc4(idx,int) des(idx,cisc,4,long) aes(partial) idea(int) blowfish(idx)
compiler: cl /MD /W3 /WX /G5 /Ox /O2 /Ob2 /Gs0 /GF /Gy /nologo -DOPENSSL_SYSNAME_WIN32 -DWIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN -DL_ENDIAN -DDSO_WIN32 -DBN_ASM -DMD5_ASM -DSHA1_ASM -DRMD160_ASM /Fdout32dll -DOPENSSL_NO_KRB5
available timing options: TIMEB HZ=1000
timing function used: ftime
The 'numbers' are in 1000s of bytes per second processed.
type             16 bytes     64 bytes    256 bytes   1024 bytes   8192 bytes
des cbc          41374.15k    42106.20k    42695.55k    43123.55k    46377.93k
des ede3         17675.11k    17719.91k    17849.97k    17852.74k    18398.65k

Looking for Performance Comparisons Between JRockit 6 and Sun Java SE 6

Hello,
Can someone point me to some performance comparisons (benchmarks, etc.) between the JRockit and Sun JVMs?
Thanks in advance.

Hi Ben.
Before I send to to the SPEC sites (which can be a tad hard to parse) I must ask - What application or type of application are you interested in? The answer will vary a bit depending on what you need.

Performance comparison of J2sdkee1.3.1's JMS and iPlanet MQ 2.0

I am evaluating two JMS APIs: The free one comes with J2sdkee 1.3.1 and the iPlanet Message Queue for Java 2.0 (free for development and evaluation, not free on Production environment).
I created two JSP pages running under Tomcat 3.3. One JSP page is calling a Java class 1 which uses j2sdkee1.3.1 JMS API: it creates InitialContext() and lookups for QueueConnectionFactory & Queue, then sends a text message to the Queue.
I did a little performance improvement by putting this process into a static method init(), so it will be called only once. The latter request will only send message.
The second JSP page is calling a Java class 2 which doesn't use JNDI, instead, it calls the new QueueConnectionFactory/QueueConnection classes provided by iPlanet MQ API.
I found out that InitialContext() call and lookup process is taking quite a long time in the first case. After that, sending message is quite fast. However, if "j2ee" is shutdown in the middle, the JSP page can't recover unless I restarted Tomcat server.
The performance of iPlanet MQ API is pretty good even if the QueueConnectionFactory/QueueConnection classes are created for each request. And it can recover after the Broker is restarted.
Anybody experienced in using J2sdkee1.3.1 JMS API? If you know a better way to improve performance other than the static method init() which can't recover, please share your information. Appreciate it.
Thanks,
Ye

Your performance comparison should be identical in all ways except for the particular server you are trying to evaluate. which should be relatively painless, given the use of JNDI.
At the very least, ignore the JNDI lookup in your first test.
I have found the j2ee JMS provider (the free one) to be quite slow, and also have found a bug with the shutdown and startup process changing the message order. which is a fundamental error.
I have used IBM MQ (websphere MQ) and found it to be very fast and worked as expected. I have not used their pub/sub product (which i suspect is based on Talarian.)
I favour servers built in native code, and integrate using JMS. just like I prefer Oracle over a pure Java RDBMS, but like the ease of integration offered with JDBC.
I would avoid webstyle start-up companies like Iplanet. That joint effort seems like a desperate attempt at reviving Netscape thru technology, rather than thru a business concept.

Apache-Netscape webserver plugin performance comparison WL8.1

Hi,
Can anyone guide me abt the performance comparisons between apache and netscape plug-in.
which one of the above wuold be best for WLP .l,Windows 2003 Server,Oracle 9i.
Thanks,
sumit
([email protected])

Hi,
Can anyone guide me abt the performance comparisons between apache and netscape plug-in.
which one of the above wuold be best for WLP .l,Windows 2003 Server,Oracle 9i.
Thanks,
sumit
([email protected])

Performance comparisons between Apple's SSD's and hard drives

Am looking for objective performance data comparing SSD's in Apple's MacBook Pro versus Apple's hard drives in MacBook Pro. I've read some material in Tom's Hardware but am looking for specific device comparisons of these storage types in MacBooks. Seek/latency/read transfer rates/write transfer rates/reliability/etc.

Thanks for the information!! I've book-marked the site and plan to refer to it often.

Servlets/JDBC vs. servlets/EJB performance comparison/benchmark

I have a PHB who believes that EJB has no ___performance___ benefit
against straightforward servlets/JSP/JDBC. Personally, I believe that
using EJB is more scalable instead of using servlets/JDBC with
connection pooling.
However, I am at a lost on how to prove it. There is all the theory, but
I would appreciate it if anyone has benchmarks or comparison of
servlets/JSP/JDBC and servlets/JSP/EJB performance, assuming that they
were tasked to do the same thing ( e.g. performance the same SQL
statement, on the same set of tables, etc. ).
Or some guide on how to setup such a benchmark and prove it internally.
In other words, the PHB needs numbers, showing performance and
scalability. In particular, I would like this to be in WLS 6.0.
Any help appreciated.

First off, whether you use servlets + JDBC or servlets + EJB, you'll
most likely spend much of your time in the database.
I would strongly suggest that you avoid the servlets + JDBC
architecture. If you want to do straight JDBC code, then it's
preferable to use a stateless session EJB between the presentation layer
and the persistence layer.
So, you should definitely consider an architecture where you have:
servlets/jsp --> stateless session ejb --> JDBC code
Your servlet / jsp layer handles presentation.
The stateless session EJB layer abstracts the persistence layer and
handles transaction demarcation.
Modularity is important here. There's no reason that your presentation
layer should be concerned with your persistence logic. Your application
might be re-used or later enhanced with an Entity EJB, or JCA Connector,
or a JMS queue providing the persistence layer.
Also, you will usually have web or graphic designers who are modifying
the web pages. Generally, they should not be exposed to transactions
and jdbc code.
We optimize the RMI calls so they are just local method calls. The
stateless session ejb instances are pooled. You won't see much if any
performance overhead.
-- Rob
jms wrote:
>
I have a PHB who believes that EJB has no ___performance___ benefit
against straightforward servlets/JSP/JDBC. Personally, I believe that
using EJB is more scalable instead of using servlets/JDBC with
connection pooling.
However, I am at a lost on how to prove it. There is all the theory, but
I would appreciate it if anyone has benchmarks or comparison of
servlets/JSP/JDBC and servlets/JSP/EJB performance, assuming that they
were tasked to do the same thing ( e.g. performance the same SQL
statement, on the same set of tables, etc. ).
Or some guide on how to setup such a benchmark and prove it internally.
In other words, the PHB needs numbers, showing performance and
scalability. In particular, I would like this to be in WLS 6.0.
Any help appreciated.--
Coming Soon: Building J2EE Applications & BEA WebLogic Server
by Michael Girdley, Rob Woollen, and Sandra Emerson
http://learnweblogic.com

Database Performance Comparison on Linux n WindowNT

Hi Everybody,
We have an Application running on Oracle7.3 n WindowNT. Now we are shifting this to Oracle8i (Rel 2). OS platform is not yet
decided. We are asked to submit a performance report of Oracle8i on Linux and Oracle8i on WindowsNT. How can we make a comparison of Oracle8i on WinowsNT n Linux(RedHat6.2).
Also if any body knows any web site related to this, please let me know the same also.
Thanks n Regards,
Hari
null

I did something like that a little while ago, so here's a summary of what I did and what I learned:
I also wanted to select a server OS for a data warehouse, and I did some head-to-head comparisons (same machine, just booted into different OS varieties, loading the same data). I used Red Hat 6.0 and 6.2, SuSE 6.3 and 6.4, and Mandrake 7.0 and 7.1, plus NT4.
Overall, I found that any Linux outperformed NT--but not by enough to make that a major factor in selection. Subjectively, I also found that everything I did was just a little bit less straightforward, a little bit less convenient in Red Hat than it was in any other Linux distribution I tried--but again, not necessarily enough to make a big difference in selection.
I also had more crashes and lockups with NT than I did with any Linux, but that may be more a reflection of my skill at administering NT vs. my skill at administering Linux.
I'd say it's definitely worth your while to evaluate Linux, and I'd suggest that you have a look at several Linux distributions while you're at it. Personally, I like SuSE and dislike Red Hat.

Performance comparisons between POF & open source serialization mechanism?

I'm curious whether anyone has done any comparisons of performance and serialized object sizes between POF and open source mechanisms such as Google Protocol Buffers and Thrift, both of which seem to be becoming quite popular. Personally, I dislike having to write a separate schema and then generate classes from it, which Protocol Buffers and Thrift require you to do, and I vastly prefer POF's mechanism of keeping everything in the code (although I wish the POF annotation framework was officially supported). But aside from that, I'd prefer to use Coherence for many of the purposes that some of my co-workers are currently using other solutions for, and this would be useful information to have in making the case.
FWIW, I hope someone at Oracle is seriously considering open-sourcing POF. I don't think that anyone who would've bought a Coherence license would decide not to because they could get POF for free. They'd just go and use something else, like the aforementioned Protocol Buffers and Thrift. Not only are many companies adopting these as standards, but as has been mentioned in other threads on this forum, that's exactly what even some Coherence users are doing:
Re: POF compatibility across Coherence versions
I really wish I could to encourage developers that I work with to give POF a look as an alternative to those two (both of which we're currently using), regardless of whether or not they plan on using Coherence in the immediate future. As things stand right now, I can't use Coherence for code that needs to be shared with people in other groups who haven't adopted Coherence yet. But if I could use POF outside of Coherence, it would probably be acceptable to those folks as a generic serialization mechanism, and it would make migrating such code to Coherence at some point down the road that much easier. If, on the other hand, I have to write that code around, say, Protocol Buffers, then it becomes much harder to later justify creating and maintaining POF as a second serialization mechanism for the same set of objects, which means it's much harder to justify using Coherence for those objects.
In short, making POF usable outside of Coherence, and who knows, maybe even getting it supported in popular open source projects such as Cassandra (which, as I understand it, uses Thrift) would make it easier to adopt Coherence in environments where objects are already persisted in other systems.
That's my two cents.

Hi,
Thank you for links. It is very interesting.
I have implemented POF serialization plugin for this benchmark http://wiki.github.com/eishay/jvm-serializers/
You can get code, run benchmark for yourself and compare result.
Handmade POF serialization http://gridkit.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/snippets/CoherencePofSerializer.java
Reflection POF serialization http://gridkit.googlecode.com/svn/wiki/snippets/CoherencePofReflection.java
Also you should put a two line in BenchmarkRunner.java, all other instructions are on jvm-serializers project page.
          Protobuf.register(groups);
          Thrift.register(groups);
          ActiveMQProtobuf.register(groups);
          Protostuff.register(groups);
          Kryo.register(groups);
          AvroSpecific.register(groups);
          AvroGeneric.register(groups);
// register POF tests here
          CoherencePofSerializer.register(groups);
          CoherencePofReflection.register(groups);
          CksBinary.register(groups);
          Hessian.register(groups);
          JavaBuiltIn.register(groups);
          JavaManual.register(groups);
          Scala.register(groups);A few comments on result.
* Micro benchmark is a micro benchmark, I saw quite differnt results then comparis java vs POF vs POF reflection on own domain objects.
* POF score very good compared to protocols like Protobuf or Thrift, especially on deserialization.
* Kryo project is quite interesting, I'm going to give it a try in next project for sure.
Again, thanks a lot for a link.

Multi-Cam Performance Comparison of Premiere, Vegas, Media Composer and EDIUS

The video below provides a comparison of Multi-Cam performance of the following video editors
Adobe Premiere
Sony Vegas
Avid Media Composer
Grass Valley's EDIUS
The following summarizes the results. See the video for all the details. In the lists, 1 is the best.
Playback Performance
Vegas
EDIUS
Premiere
Media Composer
Ease and Flexibility of Setup
EDIUS
Vegas
Premiere
Media Composer
Full Screen Playback
EDIUS
Premiere
Media Composer
Vegas
Multi-Screen Friendliness
EDIUS
Premiere
Vegas
Media Composer

Well, I've come up with a terrible, but comical solution for the second issue which doesn't involve reworking anything. It turns out that, upon launching premiere, I can play the master sequence with nested multi-cam sequences a grand total of ONCE with minimal delay. If I stop the play through, then it will take 3-4 minutes to get the sequence playing again. Of course, the Premiere decides to hang when I try to close it after playing this master timeline, so I'm finding that I can inch my way through this project by (1) launching premiere, (2) playing the master sequence, (3) make the edits I need, (4) forcibly crash Premiere, and (5) relaunch Premiere and repeat. It's a terrible way to work, but the project is so close to completion that I'm willing to suffer through it.
As to issue 1, I've taken each offending clip, extending the audio track one or two frames in the beginning of each clip, and then use those frames to ramp the volume up from silent to 0db. This seems to avoid the brief moment of distortion at the beginning. Notably I did try your suggestion by going back to the original, source audio, but I was still getting the same issue. My work-around is the only solution I've been able to come up with.

Mac book : G5 Powermac 1.8GHz performance comparison

Anyone have any ideas what kind of spec of mac book i would need to gain the same performance with music applications as my G5 1.8GHz Single core Powermac?
Or know of any comparison charts showing this data?
Cheers

Hi!
Welcome to Apple discussions forum.
When you reset NVRAM in Open Firmware all parameters are reset to factory settings: to make short screen resolution and boot drive. So this is normal. Since you have a valid system on it. If you want the machine to boot from your newly installed drive even after a reset, invert the drives in the hard drive bay slots. Put the new drive in A slot and the old one in B slot.
An alternative is to press on the option(alt) key immediately after boot chime and to select the drive you want to boot from in the system picker.
;+)
Jeff

Performance comparison between oops reports and normaal reports

Hi Abapers,
Can anyone tell me that how is it better to use oops reports instesad of normal reports
as there is no difference in select query in both the reports, and if you have any reports which give the same output developed in oops and normal way....
pls provide me with that.... so that i can check....
Regards
Aarif

Hi Arif,
the performance tuning doesn't mean concern of data fetch load or reducing database access. It also means reduce ABAP load i.e. load of Application Server.
OOABAP report works directly with memory. not with work area or tempory variable top store a value. So if your program is reached with READ, LOOP...ENDLOOP etc. you can reduce its load by using OOABAP concept.
Getting this think, you can develope an application of your own.
Regards,
Anirban

XE and 10g performance comparison

Hi all,
does anyone compared the performance of both systems? What I mean is, would the same query, on the same machine, on the same data and identic plans result in the same execution statistics, hence result in the same run-time on both systems. Or is there somekind of a undocumented bottleneck?
More precisely I would like to source out small domains of my data warehouse on machines running XE. I know that there are no bitmap indizes available, but I think that should be fine for small data sets (between 5mb and 1000mb).
Thanks in advance
Maik

Thanks for your responses. I did some measurements on the weekend comparing the performance of Oracle XE and Oracle 9.2.0.6.0, because I had no 10gR2 ready to hand. SGA, PGA, cache size, shared_pool_size were set to the same sizes.
The result was, that the XE performed 5-6 times slower than the same queries on the 9i database, even with exactly the same execution statistics, as you can see on the example below.
Does anyone has an idea where this run-time overhead is coming from?
Maik
XE:
Elapsed: 00:00:00.06
Statistics
     0 recursive calls
     0 db block gets
2567 consistent gets
     0 physical reads
     0 redo size
2860 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
     461 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
     9 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
     0 sorts (memory)
     0 sorts (disk)
     115 rows processed
9i:
Elapsed: 00:00:00.01
Statistics
     0 recursive calls
     0 db block gets
2567 consistent gets
     0 physical reads
     0 redo size
2754 bytes sent via SQL*Net to client
     576 bytes received via SQL*Net from client
     9 SQL*Net roundtrips to/from client
     1 sorts (memory)
     0 sorts (disk)
     115 rows processed

SUN DSEE 6.2 vs Fedora DS 1.1 performance comparison

Hi all,
I've just discovered a nice tool from SUN about performance analysis for ldap servers named SLAMD (http://www.slamd.com)
So I configured it and tried to analyze my servers. I've setup one SUN DSEE 6.2 and one Fedora DS 1.1
in my workstation. Both of them being populated with the same data (160 sample entries from sun) and using the same file descriptors.
My workstation is running fedora 8, Core(TM)2 Duo CPU E6550 @ 2.33GHz / 2 GB ram.
I did a couple of tests but all of them had the same search filters
Entry DN           ou=people,dc=example,dc=com
Search Filter           objectClass=*
Attribute(s) to Compare/Modify      Add Operation Frequency           3
Compare Operation Frequency           7
Delete Operation Frequency           4
Modify Operation Frequency           4
Modify RDN Operation Frequency           1
Search Operation Frequency           10      description
I will give the results of my final test which lasted 240 seconds / 200 threads from one client
DS Overall Operations (Average/sec)
SUN *35,858*
Fedora *304,867*
It seems to me there is a huge difference! I didn't expect to get such numbers. To tell you the truth
I expected SUN DS to be much faster that Fedora DS instead of being *10 times slower*.
Furthermore while running the test on the Fedora DS the system got a max load of around 7-8 which implied that the system
worked hard to perform the test (CPU always at 100%).
On the other hand while running the SUN DS test, the system never got load more that 1 (cpu not more that 22%).
It was like the SUN DS was capable to do better but it was never bothered. I played with indexes, file descriptors, number of threads without
any significant change of performance.
I'm sure SUN DS can do better. So I'm looking for thoughts on the subject as well as performance tunning/optimization documentation.
Is the resource kit also available for 6.2 or is it just for SUN ONE server?
regards
Giannis

Giannis,
Giving raw performance numbers doesn't mean anything unless you also provide the details of the data in your directory server, the settings and the exact tests performed (if it's a slamd standard job, give its name).
Slamd contains many jobs that are doing many different things leading to completely different numbers in term of operations per second.
This said, the numbers you show are puzzling me : SUN 35,858 vs Fedora 304,867 (Operations / Second) ?
I assume the , is the unit separator (and not like in the US the separator between thousands and hundreds).
If so, there is definitely something badly configured on Sun DS and/or Slamd.
Regards,
Ludovic.

CSS v ACE 4710 Performance Comparison

Am trying to verify performance figures for a CSS 11503 EOL replacement using ACE 4710
Trying to comapre apples with apples (is a CSS SSL TPS the same as a ACE 4710 TPS etc...)
Pulling figures from data sheets, release notes etc I have only come up with the following
Is there any further figures available for the ACE 4710 to fill in the blanks in table?
Am sure that ACE 4710 smokes the CSS but have to do the due diligence
<TR style="HEIGHT: 30pt" mcestyle="height: 30pt;">
<TD style="WIDTH: 170pt; HEIGHT: 30pt" height=40 width=226 mcestyle="width: 170pt; height: 30pt;"> Metric</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 83pt" width=110 mcestyle="border-left: medium none; width: 83pt;"> CSS 11503
(1xSSL Module)
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; WIDTH: 83pt" width=110 mcestyle="border-left: medium none; width: 83pt;"> ACE 4710</TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> SSL - Transactions per second</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 1,400/sec</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;">7,500/sec</TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> SSL - RSA operations per second</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 4,000/sec</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> SSL - Bulk encryption (ARC4)</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 256 Mbps</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> Maximum concurrent connections</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 40,000</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> Compression </TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 500 Mbps</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;">2 Gbps</TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> Sticky Table</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 128K entries</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> L4 connections/sec</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 22,500</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> </TD></TR>
<TR style="HEIGHT: 15pt" mcestyle="height: 15pt;">
<TD style="HEIGHT: 15pt; BORDER-TOP: medium none" height=20 mcestyle="height: 15pt; border-top: medium none;"> L7 connections/sec</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;"> 10,000</TD>
<TD style="BORDER-LEFT: medium none; BORDER-TOP: medium none" mcestyle="border-left: medium none; border-top: medium none;">
thanks,
Sez

Have reposted this msg, as table format garbled by forum
Sez

Performance Comparisons

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for