Compaq ProLiant 400 Performance of Microsoft Exchange Server 4.0 on Compaq Pro - Page 16

Single CPU Processor Subsystem Comparison

Get Compaq ProLiant 400 PDF manuals and user guides View all Compaq ProLiant 400 manuals
Add to My Manuals
Save this manual to your list of manuals

Page 16 highlights

444A/0696 WHITE PAPER (cont.) 1...6 3000 LoadSim Score vs. # Users ProLiant 5000, Pentium Pro/166 - 512KB 2500 2000 1P 1500 Score 1000 500 0 500 1000 Number of Users 1500 Figure 5. Relative Score performance of Pentium Pro/166. • This data illustrates the increased power of the Pentium Pro processor with 32-bit Windows NT applications. • Note that this system uses the PCI SMART-2 Array Controller rather than the EISA SMART Array Controller as in previous tests. Some of the performance benefit here could be attributed to better performance of the disk subsystem. • The server is less quick to consume processor resource. 1000 users can easily be supported with subsecond response time. • Interestingly, there is no real apparent bottleneck in the server hardware itself. However, the gradual slowdown trend continues as with Pentium/133 and Pentium/166. This could be due to the Exchange software itself, although it is faster overall than the Pentium-class processor subsystems. • This data implies that the system would be able to handle other tasks besides the email and public folder tasks in theLoadSim user profile. For example, the second CPU would likely be used more effectively if a gateway or some other Exchange process is added to the system. Single CPU Processor Subsystem Comparison Figures 6 and 7 show a comparison of the performance of the different processor subsystems examined. Figure6 compares single CPU configurations. Figure7 compares dual CPU configurations.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
W
HITE
P
APER
(cont.)
16
444A/0696
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LoadSim Score vs. # Users
ProLiant 5000, Pentium Pro/166 - 512KB
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
500
1000
1500
Number of Users
Score
1P
Figure 5. Relative Score performance of Pentium Pro/166.
•
This data illustrates the increased power of the Pentium Pro processor with 32-bit Windows
NT applications.
•
Note that this system uses the PCI SMART-2 Array Controller rather than the EISA SMART
Array Controller as in previous tests. Some of the performance benefit here could be
attributed to better performance of the disk subsystem.
•
The server is less quick to consume processor resource. 1000 users can easily be supported
with subsecond response time.
•
Interestingly, there is no real apparent bottleneck in the server hardware itself. However, the
gradual slowdown trend continues as with Pentium/133 and Pentium/166. This could be due
to the Exchange software itself, although it is faster overall than the Pentium-class processor
subsystems.
•
This data implies that the system would be able to handle other tasks besides the email and
public folder tasks in theLoadSim user profile. For example, the second CPU would likely be
used more effectively if a gateway or some other Exchange process is added to the system.
Single CPU Processor Subsystem Comparison
Figures 6 and 7 show a comparison of the performance of the different processor subsystems
examined. Figure 6 compares single CPU configurations. Figure
7 compares dual CPU
configurations.