|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Alacritech 100x4 Four Port Server Adapter Performance
Test (March 2000)
One Alacritech 100x4 Four Port Server Adapter vs. Two
Intel PRO/100+ Dual-Port Server Adapters
Figure 4
Figure 4 graphs the average NetBench throughput we
measured when testing with 4 network segments. The
Alacritech 100x4 four port server adapter outperformed
the two Intel PRO/100+ dual-port server adapters at
the 256, 2K, and 8K request sizes. The largest margin
of difference was at the 2K request size where the
Alacritech server adapter provided 32% better throughput
than the Intel server adapters under Windows NT. The
Intel server adapters performed worse under Windows
2000 Server than under Windows NT Server 4.0 at the
256, 2K, and 8K request sizes. Both the Alacritech
and the Intel server adapters provided the same throughput
at the 32K and 64K request sizes.
Figure 5
Figure 5 graphs the CPU utilization we observed during
the test. Here we can clearly see the benefit the
Alacritech server adapter offers by offloading processing
from the server’s CPU. Throughout the test the
server’s CPUs were near saturation when running
with the Intel server adapters on both Windows NT
Server 4.0 and Windows 2000 Server. With the Alacritech
server adapters, CPU utilization was as low as 11
percent at the 64K request size.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 below present the raw scores
for this test.
|
One Alacritech 100x4 Four Port Server Adapter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Run 1
|
|
|
Run 2
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Request Size (bytes)
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
|
256
|
359.092
|
0.166
|
91
|
359.104
|
0.166
|
94
|
359.10
|
0.17
|
92.5
|
|
2048
|
359.399
|
1.38
|
94
|
359.304
|
1.381
|
94
|
359.35
|
1.38
|
94
|
|
8192
|
408.127
|
4.887
|
55
|
411.759
|
4.844
|
55
|
409.94
|
4.87
|
55
|
|
32768
|
422.139
|
18.937
|
17
|
426.799
|
18.73
|
17
|
424.47
|
18.83
|
17
|
|
65534
|
431.562
|
37.056
|
11
|
434.175
|
36.833
|
11
|
432.87
|
36.94
|
11
|
Table 1
|
Two Intel PRO/100+ Dual-Port Server Adapters
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Run 1
|
|
|
Run 2
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Request Size (bytes)
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
|
256
|
286.296
|
0.21
|
100
|
286.01
|
0.21
|
100
|
286.15
|
0.21
|
100
|
|
2048
|
267.756
|
1.857
|
100
|
276.569
|
1.797
|
100
|
272.16
|
1.83
|
100
|
|
8192
|
357.932
|
5.574
|
100
|
357.963
|
5.574
|
100
|
357.95
|
5.57
|
100
|
|
32768
|
424.664
|
18.824
|
95
|
423.521
|
18.875
|
95
|
424.09
|
18.85
|
95
|
|
65534
|
432.369
|
36.987
|
91
|
432.371
|
36.987
|
89
|
432.37
|
36.99
|
90
|
Table 2
|
Two Intel PRO/100+ Dual-Port Server Adapters
with Windows 2000 Server
|
|
|
|
|
|
Run 1
|
|
|
Run 2
|
|
|
Average
|
|
|
|
Request Size (bytes)
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
Throughput (Mbits/sec)
|
Response Time (milli-seconds)
|
% CPU
|
|
256
|
224.875
|
0.27
|
100
|
221.264
|
0.274
|
100
|
223.07
|
0.27
|
100
|
|
2048
|
205.088
|
2.427
|
100
|
207.333
|
2.401
|
100
|
206.21
|
2.41
|
100
|
|
8192
|
288.563
|
6.917
|
100
|
288.547
|
6.918
|
100
|
288.56
|
6.92
|
100
|
|
32768
|
417.674
|
19.14
|
100
|
419.088
|
19.075
|
100
|
418.38
|
19.11
|
100
|
|
65534
|
433.141
|
36.921
|
97
|
432.796
|
36.95
|
97
|
432.97
|
36.94
|
97
|
Table 3
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
