ClearCube R1200 User Manual Page 13

  • Download
  • Add to my manuals
  • Print
  • Page
    / 36
  • Table of contents
  • BOOKMARKS
  • Rated. / 5. Based on customer reviews
Page view 12
13
Principled Technologies, Inc.: ClearCube PC Blade vs. thin client
performance in typical office application scenarios
As you can see, the results were quite similar to those on the Excel XML file open task, though this time the single
PC Blade outperformed both single thin clients. The reason for this difference is probably the load the server was
facing. While each PC Blade ran the XML processing locally, the thin clients were relying on the server to do that
work--and the server also had to supply the data files and handle the Word XML processing for them at the same
time.
As Figure 15 shows, with 5 active clients the PC Blades, which, like the thin clients, had to rely on the server to
supply the files, ran at 47 percent the speed of the single-PC Blade case. The thin clients, by contrast, ran at only
20 percent of the speed of the single PC Blade.
PERFORMANCE RESULTS (in seconds) COMPARATIVE RATING
PC blade
solution Thin-client solutions
PC blade
solution Thin-client solutions
ClearCube
R1200 PC
Blade Sun Ray 2
Wyse
Winterm
5150SE
Number of
simultaneously
active clients
ClearCube
R1200 PC
Blade Sun Ray 2
Wyse
Winterm
5150SE
10.5 15.3 12.2 1
1.00 0.69 0.86
12.8 26.1 25.2 2
0.82 0.40 0.42
15.8 34.0 33.1 3
0.66 0.31 0.32
18.6 43.4 44.7 4
0.56 0.24 0.23
22.3 51.3 53.6 5
0.47 0.20 0.20
In the five-client case, these percentage differences translated into time savings of close to 30 seconds for the PC
Blades as compared to the thin clients.
As we noted earlier, to provide an apples-to-apples comparison, we forced all the clients to store the data they
needed on the server. The PC Blades, of course, could have stored the data locally. Had we allowed the PC
Blades to do so, their performance edge in the multi-client tests would almost certainly have been much larger.
Uneven service
In all of our results discussions to this point, we have focused on average response time. In multi-user networks,
all systems of the same type should generally receive the same type of response time when performing the same
operations on the same files. In our tests, that was certainly the case with the PC Blades. Consider, for example,
the Microsoft PowerPoint change view task. Figure 16 shows the range of response times for one run of the five-
client tests of this task on each of the client types. The PC Blades, as we would hope and expect, showed
remarkably little variance, with the difference between the best response time a system received (4.9 seconds)
and the worst (5.7 seconds) under a second.
Range of response times for the five-client results on the Microsoft PowerPoint change view task
ClearCube R1200
PC Blade
Sun Ray 2
Wyse Winterm
5150SE
Minimum response time (seconds) 4.9 14.1 16.8
Maximum response time (seconds) 5.7 30.8 27.9
Range of response times (seconds) 0.8 16.7 11.1
As the same table shows, on some tasks the thin clients, by contrast, delivered very different response times to
each user, a phenomenon we refer to as "uneven service." In the five-client test of this PowerPoint operation, one
Sun Ray 2 thin client finished the test in 14.1 seconds, while another took 30.8 seconds--a difference of 16.7
seconds. The Wyse Winterm 5150SE thin clients ranged in completion times from 16.8 seconds to 27.9 seconds,
a difference of 11.1 seconds. This level of uneven service would result in different users having very different
computing experiences, something IT managers generally want to avoid.
Figure 16: Range of response times for the one run of the five-client test for the PowerPoint change view task for all three
client platforms. Lower numbers are better.
Figure 15: Results for the Microsoft Word XML file open task for all three client platforms. All results are normalized to the
one-client ClearCube R1200 PC Blade result. Higher comparative ratings are better.
Page view 12
1 2 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ... 35 36

Comments to this Manuals

No comments