edison microsoft branchcache white papertheedison.com/pdf/2010_samples_branchcache.pdfremote or...

89 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, NY 10003

www.TheEdison.com

212.367.7400

White Paper

Enhanced Branch Office Productivity

and WAN Bandwidth Savings with

Microsoft BranchCache™

Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2010 Edison Group, Inc. New York. Edison Group offers no warranty either

expressed or implied on the information contained herein and shall be held harmless for errors

resulting from its use.

All products are trademarks of their respective owners.

First Publication: March 2010

Produced by: Howard Marks, Sr. Analyst; Kelly Strand Anderson, Sr. Analyst; Barry Cohen,

Editor-in-Chief

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4

The Remote Office Dilemma ..................................................................................................... 6

Testing BranchCache Performance ........................................................................................... 9

Test Methodology ................................................................................................................... 9

Laboratory Configuration ................................................................................................... 13

Test Results ................................................................................................................................. 16

Summary of Results ............................................................................................................. 16

Scenarios ................................................................................................................................ 19

Test Scenario 1 – CIFS/SMB File Accesses .................................................................. 19

Test Scenario 2 – HTTP File Downloads ..................................................................... 23

Test Scenario 3 – SCCM Application Package Download ....................................... 27

Test Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007 File Access .................................................................... 32

Conclusions and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 36

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 37

Test Environment ................................................................................................................. 37

Test Results ............................................................................................................................ 39

CIFS/SMB Test Results ......................................................................................................... 39

HTTP Test Results ................................................................................................................ 45

MOSS2007 Test Results ........................................................................................................ 51

SCCM Test Results ............................................................................................................... 55

Edison: Enhanced Branch Office Productivity and WAN Bandwidth Savings with BranchCache Page 1

Executive Summary

Organizations seeking to lower operating expenses are investigating technology

solutions that can directly lower costs and improve productivity. One area in which

these organizations are seeking solutions is in the IT infrastructure supporting remote or

branch offices. Remote office workers frequently and repeatedly download the same

files from the central office. Increasingly, these files are composed not only of text but

also of mixed content types that include photographs, illustrations, animations, and

videos. Such documents are much larger than those in the past, demanding very high

Wide Area Network bandwidth utilization levels and slowing file access with adverse

impact on productivity.

With the release of Windows 7, Microsoft has delivered BranchCache™, a solution to

address the remote office challenge. Working in conjunction with Windows Server 2008

R2, Windows 7 clients with BranchCache capability enabled can expect to see significant

performance improvements when downloading files from the central office.

The concept behind BranchCache is straightforward: when BranchCache is enabled, a

copy of data accessed from an Intranet web, SharePoint, or file server is cached locally in

the branch office. When another client on the same network in the branch office requests

the same file, the file is transferred from the local cache rather than from across the

WAN. BranchCache improves performance when copying files between central and

remote or branch offices using the SMB, HTTP, and HTTPS protocols.

Microsoft commissioned Edison Group to examine WAN bandwidth savings with

BranchCache. In order to quantify the extent of the performance improvement that

organizations can expect, Edison analysts created a set of use case scenarios and ran

comparison tests over a range of typical WAN network types. These tests compared the

performance of Windows 7 clients with BranchCache capability enabled against client

PCs running the older Windows operating systems Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Edison’s results showed savings that, in many cases, exceeded our expectations. The

results were consistent across all the network bandwidth conditions and for all the

operating systems and BranchCache settings. These savings included:

CIFS/SMB file downloads for a PowerPoint presentation were as much as 69 percent

faster while utilizing an average of up to 59 percent less bandwidth than with

Windows Vista or Windows XP.


User download times with the HTTP protocol were 63 percent faster than with

Windows Vista and Windows XP, while requiring 49 percent less Wide Area

Network bandwidth.

Downloading an application or patch using Microsoft System Center Configuration

Manager (SCCM) and the BITS protocol was 76 to 79 percent faster and utilized 53 to

58 percent less bandwidth.

When transferring a file from a Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS

2007), clients running Windows 7 with BranchCache were 65 to 68 percent faster and

utilized 66 percent less bandwidth than Windows XP or Windows Vista.

The chart below (Figure 1, Page 2) illustrates the bandwidth savings for the three

operating systems tested across four business use scenarios. These levels of bandwidth

savings can have a direct and immediate effect on operating expenses, especially in

organizations where WAN costs are growing quickly.

For businesses looking to improve the productivity of workers in remote offices,

downloading files in less than one third the time previously required can be directly

translated into greater worker productivity and job satisfaction. (See Figure 2, Page 3 for

a chart illustrating potential time savings.)

Figure 1 – BranchCache Savings for Bandwidth Utilization.

(Smaller is better.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ave

rage

MB

Tra

nsf

erre

d

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB

BranchCache SavingsBandwidth Utilization

Windows 7

Windows XP

Windows Vista


Based upon the evidence of our tests, Edison believes that for some organizations, the

costs of upgrading to Windows 7 can be significantly offset by bandwidth savings alone.

If organizations are already contemplating PC upgrades to these remote offices,

upgrading to Windows 7 with BranchCache should be considered the new standard.

BranchCache Savings File Download Time

0

50

100

150

200

250

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB

Av

era

ge

Se

con

ds

to D

ow

nlo

ad

File

Windows 7

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Figure 2 - BranchCache Savings - File Download Time

(Smaller is better)


Introduction

Objective

Since the release of Windows 7 on October 22, 2009, many organizations have been

testing the new operating system. Among the new features that organizations should

strongly consider when making IT purchase or upgrade decisions is BranchCache.

BranchCache is a new feature in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 that enables

the acceleration of file download times for users in remote offices over a variety of

networks without requiring additional bandwidth or installation of accelerator

appliances.

Microsoft has published several documents that provide executive and technical

overviews of BranchCache that are available at www.branchcache.com. This white

paper does not duplicate the contents of those documents. Instead, it is intended to

provide third-party validation of Microsoft’s performance claims for BranchCache,

while also providing some hard metrics that readers can use in determining how

BranchCache can lower bandwidth costs and improve the productivity of workers in

satellite offices.

Audience

This white paper should be read by technically savvy business decision makers who are

concerned with Wide Area Network costs and remote office productivity. It will also be

useful for those organizations that are evaluating Windows 7 and assessing strategies for

upgrading their installed base of Windows XP and Vista clients.

Contents of this Report

This white paper contains the following sections:

The Remote Office Dilemma

This section describes the effect on productivity experienced by remote workers because

of long file transfer delays when accessing commonly used files or documents from a

centrally located server share, web server, SharePoint Server, or Configuration

Management Server.


Testing BranchCache Performance

This section describes the test scenarios and testing methodology Edison developed and

used. It includes a high-level discussion of the lab environment, the configurations, and

test methodologies.

Test Results

This section provides a summary of our test results, showing how BranchCache affects

file transfer performance within the scenarios tested.

Conclusions and Recommendations

This section provides Edison’s analysis of the benefits of BranchCache and

recommendations for implementation strategies.

Appendices

The appendices contain details of the test environment and methodology, as well as the

test result details.


The Remote Office Dilemma

The Dilemma

It was just a few years ago that organizations recognized the need to address the issues

of server sprawl – the proliferation of file and application servers across their corporate

landscape. Among the first steps taken were physical consolidation of servers from

distributed computer rooms and closets to more and more centralized data centers. This

change has resulted in significant cost reductions, especially with the emergence of

server virtualization as the ultimate consolidation tool.

Consolidation success has exposed a new concern: as servers that used to be “just down

the hall” are moved to “across the continent,” the speed of file access to which users

have been accustomed has been adversely affected by network latency and the lower

speed of Wide Area Networks (WANs).

In addition, the nature of server access and the files users are downloading have

changed as well. Where small Microsoft Word documents and Microsoft Excel

spreadsheets of less than 1 MB in size once predominated, today mixed media

documents containing images, movies, audio, and video are becoming more and more

common. These much larger sized files are also likely to be delivered via Microsoft

Office SharePoint Server 2007 or via other corporate websites.

The lower speed and higher latency of WANs and the much larger file sizes being

transferred have had consequences that can negate some of the advantages of

consolidation. This possibility can require organizations to increase the bandwidth of

their WAN connections (often at a very high cost), bring back local servers (thus

reviving server sprawl), or invest in Wide Area Application Acceleration Appliances.

While the last of these options, acceleration appliances, can be beneficial where business-

critical applications need acceleration, these devices can add significant cost and

complexity to the management of remote offices.

The BranchCache Solution

Microsoft BranchCache is designed to provide the file transfer performance

organizations are looking for without the need for costly WAN upgrades or additional

hardware to manage. BranchCache improves performance when copying files between

central and remote or branch offices using the SMB, HTTP, and HTTPS protocols. SMB


is the protocol used for transferring files between shared folders on Windows networks.

HTTP and HTTPS are the protocols used by web browsers and many other applications.

The concept behind BranchCache is straightforward: when BranchCache is enabled, a

copy of data accessed from an Intranet web, SharePoint, or file server is cached locally in

the branch office. When another client on the same network in the branch office requests

the same file, the file is transferred from the local cache rather than from across the

WAN.

BranchCache operates in two modes:

Distributed Cache. In this mode, Windows 7 client computers utilize a peer-to-peer

architecture. The first client to download a file caches a copy of the file and sends it

directly to other clients as they request it.

Hosted Cache. In this mode, content is cached to a computer on the branch network

running Windows Server 2008 R2 as the Hosted Cache. Other clients needing the

same content retrieve it directly from the Hosted Cache. Computers running the

Hosted Cache can run the Server Core installation option of Windows 2008 R2 and

can host other applications.

Figure 3 illustrates these modes:

Figure 3 - BranchCache modes (from Microsoft)

The BranchCache caches are passive: data is only retrieved when a client requests it.

This means that using BranchCache does not increase WAN utilization. Since only read

requests are cached, write operations are not affected. BranchCache operations also

respect security policies and technologies, such as SSL and IPSec.


BranchCache requires the use of Windows 7 Ultimate or Enterprise editions on

workstations and Windows Server 2008 R2 on servers. For more complete list of servers

that support BranchCache, please visit: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-

us/library/ee307962(WS.10).aspx.


Testing BranchCache Performance

Edison established a lab environment for testing BranchCache performance claims that

use of cached content will result in better user productivity and higher return on

investment. The lab was configured to test performance over a range of use cases and

test conditions. These use cases are simulations of typical branch office user interactions

with central office servers. The test conditions utilize a WAN emulator to demonstrate

the effect of different WAN networks. Tests compared the effect of Windows 7 with

BranchCache on network bandwidth and end user download times in comparison to the

older Microsoft operating systems Windows XP Professional and Windows Vista

Business.

These tests are a simulation designed to illustrate the benefits of using BranchCache.

Real-world implementations of BranchCache will experience different results that are

dependent upon many factors, including the configuration of the PCs in the branch

offices, the design of the branch office LAN, the configuration and provisioning of the

WAN, and many other factors. In addition, these tests were run using late beta or release

candidate versions of the operating systems and some of the server products tested. In

keeping with past experience with pre-released software, performance with the released

versions may be better than the results Edison has documented.

Test Methodology

As has been previously described, BranchCache accelerates performance of the SMB,

HTTP, and HTTPS protocols, offering two branch office configuration modes —

Distributed Cache and Hosted Cache. In order to provide use cases that illustrate these

protocols, Edison defined several scenarios and devised a testing methodology that

would compare the network bandwidth used and end user download times with

BranchCache in Windows 7 in both modes and in comparison to the older Microsoft

operating systems Windows XP Professional and Windows Vista Business.

The files transferred averaged 20 MB in size. This size was chosen to require measurable

and differential transfer times and bits transferred readings on the WAN emulator.

Transfer time was measured with a stop watch or the transferring application, where

applicable.


Test Conditions

Each set of tests is performed with the WAN emulator configured to emulate three

different WAN conditions. The table below (Table 1 - WAN Conditions and Use Cases,

Page 10) lists and describes the three WAN conditions with real-world use cases for each

condition.

Table 1 - WAN Conditions and Use Cases

WAN Conditions Real-World Use Case

1.5 Mbps from HQ to remote office, 384

Kbps from remote office to HQ, 40 ms

round trip latency .01% packet loss

Regional (up to 1,500 mile) VPN over

DSL line at remote office

1.5 Mbps, 95 ms latency, .02% packet loss New York to Los Angeles MPLS VPN or

leased line

5 Mbps, 195 ms latency, .05% packet loss Transpacific MPLS link

These line conditions were chosen based on AT&T MPLS service level agreements.

Test Scenarios

The following are the test scenarios used for this project. Each of the four scenarios, run

in Hosted Cache and Distributed Cache modes, was tested in a lab environment

consisting of five desktop PCs. For each scenario, a brief description of the scenario and

the use case context is followed by a description of the specific test methodology used.

References made to specific hosts, drives, and so forth are explained in the Lab

Configuration section which follows.

Scenario 1 – CIFS/SMB File Access

When users download a file from a folder on a file server to their client PC, the Server

Message Block (SMB) protocol is used. Over the years, Microsoft has added features to

SMB, usually under the Common Internet File System (CIFS) name. For the purposes of

this white paper, SMB and CIFS are used interchangeably. This test scenario measured

the time and WAN bandwidth required for this file transfer process.

A file share on the server (named Content Server) was configured to generate

BranchCache hashes as per the Microsoft deployment guide. 1 Each workstation was

mapped to this share as Drive N. Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2007 was opened on each

1 Microsoft BranchCache Deployment Guide can be accessed on the Microsoft TechNet site at:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee649232%28WS.10%29.aspx


workstation and the file opened. A stopwatch was used to measure the time from when

the open button was clicked until the image of the first slide appeared on the screen.

This process was repeated on each workstation for multiple files; the workstations were

then rebooted into the next operating system, and the process repeated.

Scenario 2 – HTTP File Accesses

The HTTP protocol is the protocol of the World Wide Web and is used by web browsers

such as Internet Explorer 8 and many other applications to transfer content over the

Internet. In the business world, many corporate Intranets host web servers from which

files, such as presentations, forms, and so forth, are regularly transferred using the

HTTP protocol. In this scenario, files to be transferred are stored on the HTTP or web

server and accessed through a link on a web page.

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS) also uses the HTTP protocol. In our test

scenarios, we are treating MOSS as a separate scenario. This was done for two reasons:

First, since MOSS uses a database to store the files, the time required for file transfer

could be affected by latency inherent in the SharePoint architecture. Second, the secure

version of HTTP, HTTPS, needed to be represented, as well. Since many MOSS

installations utilize HTTPS, it was felt that tests for the HTTPS protocol using MOSS was

a reasonably realistic scenario.

For this scenario, the Content Server was prepared as a web server for BranchCache as

described in the BranchCache Early Adopter’s Guide 2 and the BranchCache

Deployment Guide. An index.htm file of links to the TIFF files described above was

placed on the default web site of the server.

The workstations were then booted into Windows XP. On each workstation a TIFF file

was selected in Internet Explorer 8 and Save Target As was selected from the context

menu. The file was saved to the C:\TEMP folder. The transfer times reported by Internet

Explorer were used for our results.

This process was repeated for each of the workstations in turn waiting for the transfer

on each station to complete before starting the next transfer. The process was repeated

with two additional files to identify anomalous results.

2 The Microsoft BranchCache Early Adopters Guide is available at

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd637762%28WS.10%29.aspx (at the time of writing).


The process was repeated with the workstations running Windows Vista and Windows

7 using the Distributed Cache mode. Finally the BranchCache Group Policy Objects were

changed to enable the Hosted Cache mode, and additional files were downloaded.

The amount of data transferred in the download was recorded by resetting the counters

on the Apposite Linktropy 4500 as the Save button was clicked on the workstation and

noting the value at the end of the download. As there is handshaking traffic between the

two networks at all times, variations in data transfer values that represent data rates

below 20 Kbps are considered insignificant.

Scenario 3 – SCCM

System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM), a member of Microsoft’s System Center

family of Information Technology management solutions, is a tool for the

comprehensive assessment, deployment, and updating of servers, client computers, and

devices across physical, virtual distributed, and mobile environments. SCCM provides a

range of services to an organization. Among these is the distribution of software

application packages to client computers for installation.

When transferring these packages, SCCM uses a combination of the SMB protocol and

the Background Intelligent Transfer Service (BITS) protocol. The BITS protocol is used to

facilitate prioritized, throttled, and asynchronous transfer of files using idle network

bandwidth. The BITS protocol can make use of BranchCache to accelerate file transfers,

but the protocol itself is not affected by doing so. The prioritization, throttling, and other

BITS features are still in effect, so the degree of acceleration experienced by BITS

transfers is not as great as for the other scenarios. At the time of testing, SCCM with

BITS was not supported in Hosted Cache mode, so no testing was performed for this

configuration. The release version of BranchCache and the updated SCCM now support

Hosted Cache mode. Edison expects that the performance gains experienced in our other

tests would carry over to SCCM in Hosted Cache Mode.

For this scenario, self-extracting ZIP files were each packaged as an Advertised

Application via SCCM. Using the Advertised Applications Control Panel applet, each

ZIP file was downloaded to the workstation and the time to download recorded.

Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 is Microsoft’s fastest growing product ever.

Companies who are running Microsoft Windows Servers, Microsoft Windows clients,

and Microsoft Office productivity applications are implementing SharePoint servers at

an incredible pace. If a company is not yet using a full-blown MOSS 2007 server farm,

chances are they are using the free Windows SharePoint Services which provides many


of the same features without the infrastructure and management overhead associated

with MOSS.

As tested, getting a file from a SharePoint server is the same as getting one from any

web server. For this scenario a document repository of PowerPoint .PPTX files was

created, and they were downloaded as in the HTTP test. As previously described, the

HTTPS protocol was used to simulate the typical use of that secure protocol. Otherwise,

the test methodology was exactly the same as for the HTTP scenario.

Test Data

A series of 14 scanned photos in TIFF format, each 21-22.5 Mb in size, were saved on the

Content server. For SMB testing, each photo was also inserted into a PowerPoint 2007

.PPTX file. For SCCM, each TIFF file was converted into a self-extracting ZIP file using

WinZip. The file names and sizes appear in the appendix.

Laboratory Configuration

The following is the laboratory configuration for this project (see Figure 4, page 14).

Whether noted explicitly below or not, all operating systems, server, and productivity

applications had the latest service packs and patches applied.

At Emulated Headquarters

1 Physical server (Dell 2950, dual 1.86 GHz quad core Xeon processors, 16 GB

memory)

Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition R2 w/Hyper-V with the following virtual

servers

VM1 – Content Server – Windows Server 2008 R2

IIS, Valid HTTPS certificate

Domain controller for TestDomain.local

VM2 – SQL08A

System Center Configuration Manager 2007 SP2 Virtual Machine (SCCM)

(Downloadable from Microsoft)

VM3 –

Windows Server 2008 R2

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS 2007)


Gateway® DX4200-09 with AMD Phenom™ X4 9100e (1.80 GHz, quad core) processor

and 4 GB memory

Windows Server 2008 R2

SCCM server

6

7

5

3

41

2

0

PowerEdge 2950

HQ File, web and SCCM

Server

Remote

PC 5 PowerEdge 1950

0

1

2

3

Remote Office Server

Remote Office Headquarters

10/100 Network

Switch

10/100 Network

Switch

Remote

PC 1

Remote

PC 2Remote

PC 3

Remote

PC 4

Shunra WAN

Emulator

Figure 4 - Test Network Configuration Diagram

Remote Office

1 Physical Server

Acer Veriton 460G PCs. (Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 Processor, 3 GB memory, 160 GB

hard drive, and Marvell Gigabit Ethernet.)

Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition providing Domain Controller, DHCP, and

hosted BranchCache services to the five workstations.

5 Workstations

Acer Veriton 460G PCs. (Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 Processor, 3 GB memory, 160 GB

hard drive, and Marvell Gigabit Ethernet.)

Each workstation has three partitions, multiple boot configuration

All configurations saved to disk images w/Ghost for easy reversion

Partition 1

Windows XP SP3 fully updated via Windows Update

Microsoft Office 2007 SP2


Partition 2

Windows 7


Partition 3

Windows Vista Business SP2


A second hard drive holds an image of the three working partitions created with

Acronis True Image, allowing systems to be reverted to a pristine state after each test

run.

Network

The PCs are connected to an unmanaged Dell 10/100 Ethernet switch.

Subnet is 172.17.128.0/24 (an RFC 1918 reserved private network).

Apposite Linktropy 4500 WAN Emulator which routes traffic to the headquarters

network (10.16.252.0/24 also an RFC 1918 reserved net).

Belkin IP-enabled KVM switch.


Test Results

Summary of Results

Edison believes that the best way to view the results of our testing is from the

perspective of how much less time and how much less WAN bandwidth in MB is

required to transfer files to a branch office using BranchCache compared to a previous

version of the operating system (Windows Vista or Windows XP).

The following charts illustrate the average BranchCache savings on file transfer time and

bandwidth utilization for the four test scenarios in all test conditions. As can be seen in

Figure 5 the download times for Windows 7 with BranchCache show consistent

download times and are significantly faster than for the earlier operating systems.

BranchCache Savings File Download Time

0

50

100

150

200

250

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB

Av

era

ge

Se

con

ds

to D

ow

nlo

ad

File

Windows 7

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Figure 5 - BranchCache Savings on File Download Time

(Smaller is better.)


The bandwidth savings delivered by Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled are, as seen

in Figure 6, are also significant, though less consistent due to the differing nature of the

file transfer protocols being accelerated. 3

For HTTP, file download times with Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled was over 60

percent faster than Windows XP or Windows Vista. Windows 7 with BranchCache

enabled required almost one half the bandwidth than either Windows XP or Windows

Vista.

When file downloads were performed using MOSS 2007, the need for MOSS to access

SQL Server slowed down the file downloads somewhat, but the file download using

Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled still required approximately two-thirds less time

and two-thirds less bandwidth than Windows XP or Windows Vista.

3 See the scenario descriptions above or the results details below for more information on how the

transfer protocols in the four scenarios can affect file transfer time and bandwidth utilization.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ave

rage

MB

Tra

nsf

err

ed

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB

BranchCache SavingsBandwidth Utilization

Windows 7

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Figure 6 - BranchCache Savings for Bandwidth Utilization

(Smaller is better)


Downloads through SCCM exhibited a 76 to 79 percent download time reduction for

Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled and over a 53 to 58 percent bandwidth savings

over Windows XP or Windows Vista.

CIFS/SMB file download times were from 55 to 69 percent faster for Windows 7 with

BranchCache enabled and utilized from 45 to 59 percent less bandwidth than Windows

XP or Windows Vista.

The following table (Table 2) shows the performance in time and bandwidth

summarized above.

Table 2 Average Results for Scenarios

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB

Time

Windows 7 11.50 34.20 45.86 48.52

Windows XP 107.51 108.06 189.33 158.44

Windows Vista 108.06 98.50 214.17 108.44

Windows 7 Advantage over

Windows XP 63% 68% 76% 69%


Windows Vista 63% 65% 79% 55%

Bandwidth

Windows 7 11.50 7.72 13.29 9.46

Windows XP 22.53 22.80 31.71 22.97

Windows Vista 22.45 22.91 28.50 17.14


Windows XP 49% 66% 58% 59%


Windows Vista 49% 66% 53% 45%


As can be seen in Table 2, the effect of BranchCache on file download time is significant

enough in productivity savings, but the effect on bandwidth can have the greatest effect

on operational cost savings.4

Scenarios

The sections below provide summaries of the effect of Windows 7 with BranchCache

enabled for each of the four test scenarios. The data upon which these summaries are

based is presented in the appendices. All of the tests in these scenarios were performed

using the set of test conditions described in the lab configuration section. These tests

included both asymmetric and symmetric WAN emulation. Asymmetric networks are

typical of those provided by DSL and cable networks. In these networks, the download

speed is usually greater than the upload speeds.

Since the results of BranchCache acceleration for both Hosted and Distributed cache

modes were very similar and the performance of Windows XP and Windows Vista were

also similar the charts only show some of the results of the testing. This choice was made

so that the charts would be easier to read. Detailed results tables can be found in the

appendices.

Test Scenario 1 – CIFS/SMB File Accesses

The CIFS/SMB File Access Test consists of file downloads initiated from within

Microsoft PowerPoint 2007 for files on a network share (mounted as Drive N). The times

were based upon the time required to open the file.

Results

The following charts show the average performance comparison between Windows 7

with BranchCache enabled versus the performance of Windows XP and Windows Vista.

The Average Bandwidth Used chart (Figure 8, Page 20) and the Average Download

Time chart (Figure 8, Page20) show that Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled requires

much less time and bandwidth than either Windows Vista or Windows XP. It should be

noted that Windows Vista had improvements in CIFS/SMB protocol processing, which is

shown by the better performance of Vista over XP.

4 It is important to note that when a cached file is transferred, it is the performance of the caching

computer and Local Area Network that is affecting transfer time. Almost no Wide Area Network

bandwidth is being used for the transfer other than that required for determining the existence

and state of a previously transferred and cached file and checking credentials and access controls.


The two charts on the following pages show the results of acceleration on CIFS/SMB file

downloads. The charts show that downloads to XP or Vista clients take consistent

amounts of time 5 and use the same bandwidth for each client transfer, and that

Windows 7 with BranchCache greatly accelerates the download.

The different test conditions – network speed and latency – have a definite effect on the

speed of all the transfers: slower speeds require longer transfer times (Figure 9 - SMB

Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 21). The test conditions have no effect on Windows 7

bandwidth utilization, as can be seen by the overlap for all Windows 7 results (Figure 10

- SMB Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 22). Also clearly seen is the BranchCache

effect on speed and bandwidth, with markedly sharp falloffs in both metrics.

The download time for Windows 7 Distributed Mode for the Symmetrical 5 Mbps WAN

condition does not show as great a savings, as the faster network speed shortened the

time required for the initial file download, while the shortest and most accelerated

download time approached the limits of the available bandwidth for all three WAN

conditions.

5 The slightly shorter time illustrated for the third client is an anomaly of chart preparation. For

clarity purposes, only the first of two test runs for the first three clients was selected for the chart.

For the SMB scenario, the performance of the third client was slightly faster than for the previous

two clients. The fourth and fifth clients and second test run were more consistent than this

particular download instance.

Figure 8 - Average Bandwidth Used:

CIFS/SMB Protocol (Smaller is better) Figure 8 - Average Download Time:

CIFS/SMB Protocol (Smaller is better)


Figure 9 - SMB Test Results: Transfer Time


Figure 10 - SMB Results: Bandwidth Utilization


Test Scenario 2 – HTTP File Downloads

The HTTP File Access Test consists of file transfers initiated from a page hosted on an

HTPP or web server.

Results

The chart, Average Download Time (Figure 11) illustrates the 63 percent time savings

delivered by Windows 7 with BranchCache over the nearly identical download times

(see appendices for details) required by Windows Vista and Windows XP.

The bandwidth savings for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled were showed savings

of 49 percent as compared to the bandwidth required by Windows Vista or Windows

XP. (Figure 12)

Figure 11 - Average Download HTTP Protocol

(Smaller is Better)


The following two charts show the results of acceleration on HTTP file transfers (Figure

13 - HTTP Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 25 and Figure 14 - HTTP Test Results:

Bandwidth Utilization, Page 26). The charts show that file downloads to Windows XP or

Windows Vista clients take consistent amounts of time and use the same bandwidth for

each client transfer, and that Windows 7 with BranchCache greatly accelerates the file

download.


speed of all the file downloads: slower speeds require longer transfer times. This is

evident for the 5 Mbps downloads for Windows Vista where the download time is less

than half for the slower networks. It also is apparent with the faster initial client

performance for Window 7 with BranchCache enabled. The acceleration provided by

BranchCache is not as profound over the faster network, at least for a file size that is

small relative to the connection speed.

The test conditions have no effect on BranchCache bandwidth utilization, as can be seen

in the near total overlap of the BranchCache results. BranchCache is equally efficient

across the full range of test conditions utilized in this study.

Figure 12 - Average Bandwidth Used: HTTP

Protocol (Smaller is better)


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 2 3

Tim

e in

Se

con

ds

Clients

HTTP Test ResultsTransfer Time

Asymmetrical 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Windows Vista

Symmetrical 1.5Mbps Windows Vista

Symmetrical 5Mbps Windows Vista

Asymmetrical 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Windows 7

Distributed Cache

Symmetrical 1.5Mbps Windows 7 Distributed Cache

Symmetrical 5Mbps Windows 7 Distributed Cache

Figure 13 - HTTP Test Results: Transfer Time


-0.005

0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

MB

Tra

nsf

err

ed

Clients

HTTP Test ResultsBandwidth Utilization





Distributed Cache



Figure 14 - HTTP Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization


Test Scenario 3 – SCCM Application Package Download

Microsoft System Center Configuration Manager (SCCM) enables the automated

transfer of application installation and patch files to end-user computers. SCCM utilizes

the BITS throttling mechanism to manage the transfers, while the files themselves are

transferred using the SMB protocol. The BranchCache Acceleration Affect only operates

on the actual SMB file transfer aspect of an SCCM transaction, so the results are not as

marked as for the two previous (HTTP and MOSS) tests.

At the time of testing, SCCM with BITS was not supported in Hosted Cache mode, so no

testing was performed for this configuration. 6 The release version of BranchCache and

an updated SCCM now support Hosted Cache mode. Edison expects that the

performance gains experienced in our other tests will carry over to SCCM in Hosted

Cache Mode.

Results

SCCM download times for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled were 76 percent faster

than for Windows XP and 79 percent faster than for Windows Vista, as can be seen in

the chart (Figure 15 – Average Download Time: SCCM, Page 27). Application and

operating system installations and patching can be very disruptive of productivity.

Savings of this order of magnitude can be a major productivity boost.

6 The inability to test SCCM in hosted mode is what drove the decision to show only Windows 7

with BranchCache enabled in distributed mode in these charts.

Figure 15 - Average Download Time: SCCM


Bandwidth utilization was also much lower with Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled

than with the older operating systems, though perhaps not so spectacularly. (Figure 16 –

Average Bandwidth Used: SCCM, Page 28) Nevertheless, Windows 7 used 53 percent

less bandwidth than Windows Vista and 58 percent less bandwidth than required by

Windows XP.

Figure 16- Average Bandwidth Used: SCCM


The following two charts show the results of acceleration on downloads of SCCM

Application Packages (Figure 17 - SCCM Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 30 and Figure

18 - SCCM Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 31). As in the other scenarios, the

charts show that transfers to XP or Vista clients take consistent amounts of time and use

the same bandwidth for each client transfer, and that Windows 7 with BranchCache

greatly accelerates the data transfer.


speed of all the transfers: slower speeds require longer transfer times. The effect of the

higher network speeds is less pronounced with SCCM. Edison attributes this difference

to the differences in the BITS protocol as compared to the other protocols tested.

The download for Windows Vista under Asymmetrical conditions, as would be

expected, utilized more bandwidth than downloads for Windows Vista under the

symmetrical conditions. This was due to the longer time required for the client to

communicate back to the SCCM server under asymmetrical conditions, thus slowing the

entire process. This example shows a clear advantage for Windows 7 clients using

BranchCache for OS and application downloads or patching from an organization’s

SCCM servers when there is an asymmetric connection. The savings in bandwidth from

over 30 MBs of data transferred to nearly zero data transferred can have a considerable

positive effect on branch office WAN utilization.


0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3

Tim

e in

Se

con

ds

Clients

SCCM Test ResultsTransfer Time





Distributed Cache



Figure 17 - SCCM Test Results: Transfer Time


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1 2 3

MB

Tra

nsf

err

ed

Clients

SCCM Test ResultsBandwidth Utiliztion





Distributed Cache



Figure 18 - SCCM Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization


Test Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007 File Access

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 enables users to access files from a database-

supported and application-driven portal. In this test scenario, files were downloaded

using the same technique as was used for the HTTP tests in Scenario 2. The only

differences were that MOSS access was over the secure HTTPS protocol, and the files

themselves were stored in the MOSS database.

Results

The BranchCache savings in time and bandwidth were very symmetrical. As illustrated

in the chart (Figure 20 – Average Bandwidth Used: MOSS 2007) bandwidth savings were

the same 66 per cent for Windows 7 as compared to Windows XP or Windows Vista.

Time savings for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled over Windows XP were 68

percent. The savings over Windows Vista were 65 percent (Figure 20 – Average

Download Time: MOSS 2007).

Figure 20 - Average Bandwidth Used: MOSS

2007 (Smaller is better.)

Figure 20 - Average Download Time: MOSS

2007 (Smaller is better.)


The chart (Figure 21 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 34) shows the results

of acceleration on MOSS 2007 HTTPS file downloads. The chart shows that file

downloads to Windows Vista clients take virtually identical times for the slower

asymmetrical and symmetrical network conditions without noticeable variation during

the tests. This showed that there was little to no communication to the MOSS server once

the download commenced. The performance for Windows Vista at 5 Mbps shows some

speed variation. As in a previous test, this variation was an anomaly of the chart making

procedure: the download to second client for the first test run was slightly slower than

for the other clients in either test run. Since the chart only shows three runs, this

difference is more obvious than it would be if all the test runs were shown.

Bandwidth utilization for file downloads with MOSS 2007 (Figure 22 - MOSS 2007 Test

Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 35) was very consistent for both operating systems

illustrated. The chart line overlaps reveal that the two 1.5 Mbps downloads to Windows

Vista utilized virtually identical bandwidth, while the 5 Mbps Windows Vista download

utilized slightly less bandwidth, but the results under all three conditions were very

similar in utilization. Once again, the chart line overlap shows that Windows 7 with

BranchCache results were nearly identical for all three test conditions, quickly

approaching zero WAN bandwidth utilization.

Organizations with MOSS 2007 servers hosting remote offices connected over a range of

network conditions will see a significant productivity boost due to faster file download

speeds. Bandwidth costs and contention will also be positively affected by running

Windows 7 clients with BranchCache enabled.


Figure 21 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Transfer Time


Figure 22 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization


Conclusions and Recommendations

Edison analysts created and ran a series of tests designed to provide quantified data that

would illustrate the effects of the file transfer acceleration provided by using Windows 7

and Windows Server 2008 R2 with BranchCache enabled. The result of Edison’s testing

shows that BranchCache delivers on its promise. File downloads were, on average, 69

percent faster with Windows 7 and BranchCache than for Windows XP and 66 percent

faster than for Windows Vista. Bandwidth utilization averaged 58 percent less for

Windows 7 versus Windows XP and 53 percent less than Windows Vista.

With the vast range of possible configurations and tariffs, Edison has made no attempt

to calculate the potential financial savings attributable to lower bandwidth utilization,

but it should be obvious that the significant bandwidth savings possible with

BranchCache could have an ameliorating affect on operating system upgrade costs,

possibly sufficient to justify branch office upgrades.

Edison believes that the results support two recommendations for organizations

contemplating upgrading their end-user operating systems to Windows 7. The first of

these is to stage upgrades to central servers and branch offices. Upgrade remotely

accessible servers to Windows Server 2008 R2 and remote branch computers to use

Windows 7, adding branch servers using Windows Server 2008 R2 where necessary.

Distributed Cache mode allows IT professionals to take advantage of BranchCache with

minimal hardware deployments in the branch office. However, if the branch has

deployed other infrastructure (for example, servers running other workloads) using

Hosted Cache mode may be beneficial for increased cache availability and caching for

the entire branch office. (Microsoft suggests that Distributed Cache mode can be

adequate for offices of fewer than 50 users on a subnet)

The second recommendation is to consider the replacement of shared folder network

designs with SharePoint. Whether an organization utilizes Windows SharePoint Services

(WSS, available at no charge) or the more sophisticated and centrally manageable

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server (MOSS), the productivity benefits of higher transfer

speeds and the lower bandwidth costs can offset many SharePoint adoption costs while

providing the recognized business value of the SharePoint portal paradigm.


Appendices

Test Environment

This section consists of a detailed listing of the equipment and software utilized in

testing, including applicable configuration settings details.

Lab Configuration

Remote Office Workstations (5)

Model Acer Verton 460G

CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (2.93 MHz)

Memory 4 GB

Operating Systems

Windows XP Professional

Windows Vista Business

Windows 7 Enterprise

Hard Drive 160 GB Western Digital Caviar Blue SATA II

Remote Office Switch

Dell PowerConnect 2216 unmanaged 10/100 16 ports

Remote Office Server

Model Acer Veriton 460G

CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (2.93 MHz)

Memory 4 GB

Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise

Hard Drive 160 GB Western Digital Caviar Blue SATA II

Roles and Features

Active Directory Domain Controller

IIS web server

BranchCache Hosted Cache server

File Server


WAN Emulator

Apposite Linktropy 4500 WAN Emulator configured as router

Virtual Server Host

Model Dell PowerEdge 2950

CPU Intel Xeon E5320 (Quad core 1.83 GHz)

Memory 16 GB

Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 Datacenter with Hyper-V

Hard Drive 4x73 GB SAS on PERC 5i RAID controller

Virtual Machines


HQ2008R2 – A File and Web server used as the data source

for SMB and HTTP testing

SQL08A – A Windows Server 2003R2 server running SQL

Server 2008 hosting the SCCM and SharePoint databases.

SCCM and MOSS hosts

Model Gateway DX4200-09

CPU AMD Phenom™ X4 9100e (1.80 GHz, quad core)

Memory 4 GB

Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 r2 Enterprise

Hard Drive 160 GB Western Digital Caviar Blue

Virtual Machines


HQ2008R2 – A Windows Server 2008R2 Enterprise system

providing file and web services used as the data source for

SMB and HTTP testing

SQL08A – A Windows Server 2003R2 server running SQL

Server 2008 hosting the SCCM and SharePoint databases.


Test Results

The following pages present the results of Edison’s testing. The results are presented for

each test scenario in the form of a summary table that lists each test condition and

operating system, and in detail tables showing the results of each test run.

In the summary tables, the results for each platform, for each WAN condition are shown

in one table. A second table shows the percent advantage of Windows 7 with

BranchCache enabled versus the legacy operating systems; Windows Vista and

Windows XP.

In the details tables, file transfer duration is presented in minutes and seconds (MM:SS).

Data transferred is presented in MB or KB as measured during transferred through the

WAN emulator.

CIFS/SMB Test Results

Results Summary

The test results show that Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled is 58 percent faster and

requires 45 percent less bandwidth than Windows Vista. The results also show that

Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled is 69 percent faster while requiring 59 percent

less bandwidth than Windows XP.

The performance advantages are not as great when compared to the results from some

other scenarios. Edison believes the performance difference is due to the way the

application (PowerPoint 2007) interacts with the network while retrieving the file. While

the files were being transferred, it appeared that the first data blocks were being sent

from the remote server while BranchCache was checking whether the file existed in a

local cache. When the cached file was identified, network transfers stopped and the

remainder of the file was transferred from the branch cache. Presuming our observation

matches BranchCache design, it is probable that transferring larger files would

demonstrate a greater difference in speed and bandwidth utilization.


CIFS/SMB Scenario Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization

MB Transferred

Windows 7

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps

Windows 7 Distributed Cache 56.75 9.56


Windows 7 Hosted Cache 54.13 9.09

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows 7

Distributed Cache 58.63 9.21

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted

Cache 52.13 9.11

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7


Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted

Cache 33.63 10.14

Windows XP


Windows XP 154.00 23.05

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows XP 160.67 22.93

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows XP 160.67 22.93

Windows Vista

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384Kbps

Windows Vista 128.50 23.50

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows Vista 127.33 5.06

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows Vista 69.50 22.87

Average bandwidth and download times by platform

Platform Average Bandwidth Used Average Download Time

W7 w. BC Enabled 9.46 48.52


Windows XP 22.97 158.44


Comparison of Windows 7 with Windows Vista and Windows XP

Windows 7 Advantage Average Bandwidth Used Average Download Time

Versus Vista 45% 58%

Versus XP 59% 69%

Details

The following tables show the results for all the test runs for each WAN bandwidth

condition. The files on the remote server were pre-cached, so only the first Windows 7

workstation to download the file utilized WAN bandwidth. The other Windows 7

workstations downloaded the file from the branch workstation’s cache. Test runs ceased

after three successful transfers occurred without significant deviation in performance

(indicated as NTR in the table).

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows XP

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:35 22.6 MB 2:33 23.5 MB

2 2:34 22.7 MB 2:34 23.4 MB

3 2:35 22.6 MB 2:34 23.5 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows Vista

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:09 23.6 MB 2:08 23.4 MB

2 2:09 23.6 MB 2:08 23.4 MB

3 2:08 23.6 MB 2:09 23.4 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows 7 Distributed Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:11 22.6 MB 2:14 23.4 MB

2 0:18 3 MB 0:29 4.5 MB

3 0:32 5.7 MB 0:41 6 MB

4 0:30 4.5 MB 0:39 6.8 MB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:14 23.9 MB 2:07 22.0 MB

2 0:24 3.4 MB 0:29 4.5 MB

3 0:25 3.4 MB 0:35 5.6 MB

4 0:24 3.4 MB 0:35 5.6 MB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows XP

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 3:01 23.0 MB 3:06 23.6 MB

2 3:00 23.2 MB 3:06 23.6 MB

3 3:01 23.1 MB 3:06 23.6 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows Vista

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:08 23 MB 2:10 23.6 MB

2 2:07 23.1 MB 2:10 23.6 MB

3 2:07 23.1 MB 2:11 23.6 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows 7 Distributed Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:12 23.1MB 2:14 22.7 MB

2 0:25 3.4 MB 0:25 3.4 MB

3 0:38 5.6 MB 0:49 7.2 MB

4 0:25 3.4 MB 0:31 4.2 MB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:05 23.2 MB 1:11 22.5 MB

2 0:27 4.5 MB 0:24 5.6 MB

3 0:29 5.6 MB 0:30 8.9 MB

4 0:35 6.7 MB 0:06 35 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows XP

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:44 22.9 MB 2:33 23.0 MB

2 2:43 22.9 MB 2:39 23.1 MB

3 2:42 22.8 MB 2:43 23.0 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows Vista

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:33 22.9 MB 1:26 22.9 MB

2 1:34 22.8 MB 1:00 22.9 MB

3 1:07 22.8 MB 0:49 22.9 MB

4 1:04 22.8 MB 0:56 23 MB

5 1:06 22.8 MB 1:00 22.9 MB

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Distributed Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:05 23.2 MB 1:11 24.3 MB

2 0:27 4.5 MB 0:24 4.0 MB

3 0:29 5.6 MB 0:30 5.8 MB

4 0:35 6.7 MB 0:30 5.7 MB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:07 23 MB 0:57 23.6 MB

2 0:20 5.6 MB 0:28 7.8 MB

3 0:24 5.6 MB 0:16 3.4 MB

4 0:23 6.6 MB 0:34 5.5 MB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

HTTP Test Results

Results Summary

The test results show that Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled is 63 percent faster

than either Windows Vista or XP. Bandwidth savings for Windows 7 versus Windows

Vista or Windows XP was 49 percent.

HTTP Scenario Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows 7

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows 7


Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows 7

Hosted Cache 53.80 9.13

Symmetrical 1.5 Mbps Windows 7 Distributed

Cache 50.60 8.99


Cache 53.80 9.13

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Distributed

Cache 18.50 9.14

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache 11.50 23.63


HTTP Scenario Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows Vista

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows XP 123.70 22.58



Windows XP

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows

Vista 121.50 22.57





W7 w. BC Enabled 11.50 39.93


Windows XP 22.53 107.51




Versus XP 49% 63%


Details


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 22.6 MB 2:00 22.5 MB

2 2:06 22.8 MB 2:01 22.5 MB

3 2:07 22.6 MB 2:01 22.4 MB

4 2:08 22.7 MB 2:00 22.6 MB

5 2:06 22.6 MB 2:01 22.5 MB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:59 22.3 MB 2:04 22.9 MB

2 2:00 22.3 MB 2:02 22.8 MB

3 2:00 22.4 MB 2:03 22.8 MB

4 2:01 22.3 MB 2:02 22.8 MB

5 2:00 22.3 MB 2:04 22.8 MB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:06 22.4 MB 2:02 22.5 MB

2 2:04 22.4 MB 2:01 22.5 MB

3 0:04 15 KB 0:03 18 KB

4 0:04 22 KB 0:03 27 KB

5 0:04 67 KB 0:03 21 KB



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:05 23.0 MB 2:11 22.6 MB

2 2:03 22.9 MB 2:08 22.7 MB

3 0:06 9 KB 0:05 14 KB

4 0:05 11 KB 0:05 33 KB

5 0:05 5 KB 0:05 41 KB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:52 22 MB 2:01 23 MB

2 2:02 22 MB 2:02 22 MB

3 2:01 23 MB 2:01 22. MB

4 2:01 22 MB 2:02 23 MB

5 2:02 22 MB 2:01 22 MB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 22 MB 2:02 22. MB

2 2:07 22 MB 2:03 22 MB

3 2:08 22 MB 2:03 22 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:03 22 MB 2:02 22.9 MB

2 2:02 22 MB 2:02 22.8 MB

3 0:02 7 KB 0:03 12 KB

4 0:03 41 KB 0:03 54 KB

5 0:03 19 KB 0:03 34 KB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:05 23.0 MB 2:11 22.6 MB

2 2:03 22.9 MB 2:08 22.7 MB

3 0:06 9 KB 0:05 14 KB

4 0:05 11 KB 0:05 33 KB

5 0:05 5 KB 0:05 41 KB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:26 22.8 1:21 22.6

2 1:16 22.8 1:19 22.7

3 1:11 22.7 1:17 22.6

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 22 MB 2:02 22 MB

2 2:07 22 MB 2:03 22 MB

3 2:08 22 MB 2:03 22 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 0:38 23.15 0:47 22.4

2 0:41 23.7 0:41 22.5

3 0:03 21 K 0:03 34 K

4 0:03 47 K 0:03 43 K

5 0:03 23 K 0:03 48 K


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 0:41 23.1 MB 0:42 22.8 MB

2 0:48 23.2 MB 0:46 22.9 MB

3 0:03 .012 KB 0:03 0

4 0:03 8 KB 0:03 12 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

The larger variations in transfer times on this test are caused by the higher packet loss

rate. Since TCP/IP drops its net utilization when a packet is lost, packets lost close

together or at the end of a file transfer have smaller effects than those spread out or at


the end of the file transfer. Vista and Windows 7 improved TCP/IP stacks recover faster

and handle latency better on long fat pipes.

MOSS2007 Test Results

Results Summary


than Windows Vista, and 68 percent faster than Windows XP. Bandwidth savings for

Windows 7 versus Windows Vista or Windows XP was 66 percent.

MOSS 2007 Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows 7




Windows 7 Hosted Cache 32.75 5.71




Cache 32.75 5.72



Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Hosted

Cache 16.22 7.53

Windows XP


Windows XP 124.00 23.10



Windows Vista








W7 w. BC Enabled 7.72 34.20


Windows XP 22.80 108.06




Versus XP 66% 68%

Details


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 23.7 MB 2:01 22.5 MB

2 2:07 23.7 MB 2:01 22.5 MB

3 2:07 23.7 MB 2:01 22.5 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 23.6 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

2 2:07 23.7 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

3 2:07 23.6 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 23.6 MB 2:01 22.7 MB

2 2:06 23.5 MB 2:00 22.4 MB

3 0:04 6 kb 0:03 4 KB

4 0:03 12 kb 0:03 22 KB

5 0:03 27 kb 0:03 19 KB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:02 23 MB 2:02 22.6 MB

2 0:03 22 KB 0:03 11 KB

3 0:03 4 KB 0:03 5 KB

4 0:03 13 KB 0:03 16 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:03 22.7 MB 2:04 22.8 MB

2 2:03 22.7 MB 2:04 22.8 MB

3 2:04 22.8 MB 2:03 22.8 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:07 23.6 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

2 2:07 23.6 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

3 2:07 23.7 MB 2:02 22.6 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:01 22.8 MB 2:02 22.8 MB

2 2:01 22.6 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

3 0:03 2.4 KB 0:03 6 KB

4 0:03 11 KB 0:03 8 KB

5 0:03 108 KB 0:03 16 KB


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:03 22.9 MB 2:01 22.6 MB

2 0:03 226 KB 0:03 0

3 0:03 0.59 KB 0:03 22 KB

4 0:03 25 KB 0:03 14 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:17 22.8 MB 1:20 22.2 MB

2 1:16 22.8 MB 1:16 22.3 MB

3 1:17 22.8 MB 1:23 22.3 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 0:42 22.8 MB 0:46 22.1 MB

2 0:53 22.9 MB 0:48 22.3 MB

3 0:46 22.8 MB 0:49 22 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

SCCM Test Results

Results Summary


than Windows Vista and 79 percent faster than Windows XP. Bandwidth savings for

Windows 7 versus Windows Vista was 58 percent. Windows 7 required 53 percent less

bandwidth than Windows XP.


SCCM Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows 7







Windows XP


Windows XP 190.67 29.28



Windows Vista

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384Kbps






W7 w. BC Enabled 13.29 45.86


Windows XP 28.50 214.17




Versus XP 53% 79%


Details

The following tables show the results for all the test runs for each WAN bandwidth

condition. The files on the remote server were pre-cached, so only the first Windows 7

workstation to download the file utilized WAN bandwidth. The other Windows 7

workstations downloaded the file from the branch workstation’s cache. Test runs ceased

after three successful transfers occurred without significant deviation in performance

(indicated as NTR in the table).

At the time of testing SCCM was not supported in Hosted mode. These results are

shown as N/A.

Asymmetrical 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Windows XP

Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:39 24.9 MB 3:31 32.6

2 2:47 25.1 MB 3:31 32.6

3 3:05 27.9 MB 3:31 32.6

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 3:27 32.6 MB 2:33 23.9 MB

2 3:26 32.6 MB 2:34 23.9 MB

3 3:27 32.6 MB 2:32 23.9 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 4:01 32.2 MB 3:31 32.6

2 0:11 166 KB 0:28 0.041

3 0:37 39 KB 0:21 0.085

4 0:28 12 KB 0:46 0.009

5 0:26 153 KB NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 N/A N/A N/A N/A


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 4:25 39.8 MB 2:59 26.6 MB

2 4:22 39.7 MB 3:00 26.5 MB

3 4:25 39.7 MB 3:00 26.6 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 4:22 31.8 MB 2:42 16.6 MB

2 4:22 31.9MB 2:40 16.5MB

3 4:25 31.9 MB 2:37 16.5 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 5:03 39.6 MB 4:50 25.6 MB

2 0:21 1.7 MB 0:22 42 KB

3 0:56 65 KB 0:34 49 KB

4 0:27 114 KB 0:27 36 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 N/A N/A N/A N/A



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 2:38 33.5 MB 2:26 31.9 MB

2 2:42 33.5 MB 2:34 31.9 MB

3 2:45 35.0 MB 2:28 31.8 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 4:30 31.8 MB 2:42 16.6 MB

2 4:21 31.9 MB 2:40 16.5 MB

3 4:30 31.9 MB 2:37 16.5 MB

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 1:37 16.4 MB 1:41 16.7 MB

2 0:21 1.1 MB 0:23 1.2 MB

3 0:22 42 KB 0:22 42 KB

4 0:14 32 KB 0:15 34 KB

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

1.TIF Transfer

Time

1.TIF Data

Transferred

2.TIF Transfer

Time

2.TIF Data

Transferred

1 N/A N/A N/A N/A

2 N/A N/A N/A N/A

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A

4 N/A N/A N/A N/A

5 N/A N/A N/A N/A

edison microsoft branchcache white papertheedison.com/pdf/2010_samples_branchcache.pdfremote or...

Documents