Edison Microsoft Branchcache with App-V White Paper

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™

Version 2

Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2012 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 2011, Version 2: August 2011

Produced by: Barry Cohen, Sr. Analyst and Editor-in-Chief; Manish Bhardwaj, Lead

Analyst; Kelly Strand Anderson, Sr. Analyst;

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 8

Objective ..................................................................................................................................... 8

Audience .................................................................................................................................... 8

Contents of this Report ............................................................................................................. 8

The Remote Office Dilemma ............................................................................................... 8

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

Test Results ............................................................................................................................ 9

Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................................. 9

Appendices ............................................................................................................................ 9

The Remote Office Dilemma ..................................................................................................... 10

The Dilemma ........................................................................................................................... 10

The BranchCache Solution ..................................................................................................... 11

Testing BranchCache Performance ........................................................................................... 13

Test Methodology ................................................................................................................... 13

Test Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 14

Test Data ............................................................................................................................... 18

Laboratory Configuration ...................................................................................................... 18

At Emulated Headquarters ................................................................................................ 18

App-V Configuration ......................................................................................................... 19

Remote Office ...................................................................................................................... 19

Test Results .................................................................................................................................. 21

Summary of Results ................................................................................................................ 21

Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 26

Test Scenario 1 – CIFS/SMB File Accesses ....................................................................... 26

Test Scenario 2 – HTTP File Downloads .......................................................................... 28

Test Scenario 3 – SCCM Application Package Download............................................. 33

Test Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007 File Access ......................................................................... 39

Test Scenario 5 – App-V ..................................................................................................... 42

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 48

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 50

Test Environment .................................................................................................................... 50

Test Results .............................................................................................................................. 52

CIFS/SMB Test Results ........................................................................................................... 53

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 53

Details ................................................................................................................................... 54

HTTP Test Results ................................................................................................................... 59

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 59

Details ................................................................................................................................... 60

MOSS2007 Test Results .......................................................................................................... 64

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 64

Details ................................................................................................................................... 66

SCCM Test Results .................................................................................................................. 69

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 69

Details ................................................................................................................................... 71

App-V results ........................................................................................................................... 75

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 75

Details ................................................................................................................................... 76

Enhanced Branch Office Productivity and WAN Bandwidth Savings with Microsoft BranchCache™ Page 2

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 in the past, demanding very high Wide

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

on productivity.

Application virtualization allows organizations to streamline the deployment of

software to the end user. Applications virtualized with App-V can be deployed and

launched by end users at a much quicker rate than traditional complete local

deployments. Deploying large modern programs to remote offices consumes large

amounts of bandwidth and is very time-consuming, making the practice expensive.

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 over the WAN 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.

Edison testing shows that BranchCache greatly accelerates App-V performance. It is 24

to 34 percent faster and utilizes 33 to 37 percent less bandwidth than App-V. These

savings in time and bandwidth are especially important to those people responsible for

application deployments and updates.

The following chart (Figure 1, Page 4) illustrates the bandwidth savings for the three

operating systems tested across four business use scenarios. A second chart (Figure 2,

Page 5) illustrates the bandwidth savings for the three operating systems for the App-V

business use scenario. These levels of bandwidth savings can have a direct and

immediate effect on operating expenses, especially in organizations where WAN costs

are growing quickly.


Figure 1 - BranchCache Bandwidth Utilization Savings


Figure 2 - BranchCache Bandwidth Utilization Savings: App-V

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

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

translated into greater worker productivity and job satisfaction. (See Figure 3, Page 6 for

a chart illustrating potential time savings for four business use scenarios. See Figure 4,

Page 7 for a chart illustrating potential time savings for the fifth business use scenario:

App-V.) For many organizations, virtualizing standard applications with App-V can

significantly lower provisioning costs. When run on Windows 7 with BranchCache,

organizations can obtain the same App-V benefits for their branch offices that App-V

offers to LAN-based implementations. While App-V does run on Windows XP and

Vista, for branch offices its performance really shines on Windows 7 with BranchCache.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Average Bandwidth Used

Ave

rgag

e M

B T

ran

sfe

rre

dBranchCache Savings Bandwidth Utilization

App-V

W7 w. BC Enabled

Windows Vista

Windows XP


Figure 3 - BranchCache File Download Time Savings


Figure 4: BranchCache Savings - Application Delivery Time: App-V

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.

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

Average Download Time

Ave

rage

Tim

e t

o O

pe

n A

pp

licat

ion

BranchCache SavingsApplication Delivery Time

App-V

W7 w. BC Enabled

Windows Vista

Windows XP


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 purchases 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

Technically savvy business decision makers who are concerned with Wide Area

Network costs and remote office productivity should read this white paper. 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, Configuration

Management Server, or Microsoft Application Virtualization 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: network latency and the lower speed

of Wide Area Networks (WANs) adversely affects the speed of file access to which users

have been accustomed when servers that used to be “just down the hall” are moved

“across the continent.”

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

changed. 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. Users are also

likely to access these much larger sized files via Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007

or other corporate websites.

Another dilemma facing many organizations is addressing the expansion of a large and

diverse portfolio of applications to the desktop. While restricting application choice to a

narrow set of tested, approved, and locked-down applications offers an appealing

benefit in reducing IT costs by limiting the breadth of applications available, this

approach can frustrate users who need greater flexibility than it provides. One technique

that can be used to resolve the flexibility challenge is application virtualization.

Microsoft Application Virtualization (App-V) is one example of an application

virtualization platform. As part of the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP),

App-V enables organizations to deliver applications as centrally managed virtual

services. This can reduce deployment complexity, eliminate application conflicts, and

simplify the Windows Desktop OS image footprint, which will speed desktop PC

provisioning. App-V can deliver significant operational savings for many organizations;1

however, an obstacle can be delivering applications to branch offices across a WAN.

1 For more information about App-V see

http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/appv/default.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/appv/default.mspx


Some of the advantages of consolidation can be negated due to the lower speed and

higher latency of WANs and the much larger file sizes being transferred. Loading a

virtualized instance of Microsoft Office over a slow WAN connection can make

application virtualization an impractical option. These possibilities 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. This last options — acceleration appliances — can

be beneficial where business-critical applications need acceleration, but such devices can

also add significant cost as well as 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 5 illustrates these modes:

Figure 5 - 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, the tests in the first four scenarios 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.

Edison chose Microsoft Office 2010 as the test application for App-V in order to reflect

the recent release of both App-V version 4.6 and Office 2010. In addition, upgrading to

Office 2010 on top of the upgrade to Windows 7 offers an opportunity to update the IT

infrastructure to support virtual applications. The file sizes for using Microsoft Office

2010 with App-V are much larger, at about 2.6 GB, than the 20 MB files downloaded in


the other BranchCache tests. This large file size intimates both the challenge presented

by application virtualization across a WAN and how BranchCache can meet that

challenge.

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

applicable.

Test Conditions

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

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

Page 14) 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, 40ms

round trip latency .01% packet loss

Regional (up to 1,500 mile) VPN over

DSL line at remote office

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

leased line

5 Mbps, 195ms 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 five scenarios, run

in Hosted Cache mode and Distributed Cache mode for Windows 7 with BranchCache,

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 that 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. 2 Each workstation was

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

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 Guide3 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.

2 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 3 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).


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.

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 the same as for the HTTP scenario.

Scenario 5 - App-V

Microsoft Application Virtualization (App-V) is Microsoft's solution for centrally

managing and deploying virtualized applications to the desktop. With App-V, instead

of downloading and installing an entire application, only the code necessary to start the

program is downloaded from a central Virtual Application Server. This download is

typically 20 to 40 percent of the total application. While the application is being used,

additional application code is downloaded and cached on the user's PC. When the

session terminates, the application and its user preferences are cached in a file-based

location on the user's PC. Subsequent uses are loaded from this cache, resulting in faster

load times and low impact on the network.

One challenge for organizations is that delivering a large application across the WAN

via App-V can consume considerable bandwidth and time, which can add up when

multiplied by all the users in a branch office who may need this application. Our testing

was intended to demonstrate how adding BranchCache to the equation can decrease the

amount of time it takes to deliver applications virtualized using App-V while improving

user experience and lowering the operating costs associated with bandwidth usage.


Test Data

For the file download tests (CIFS/SMB, HTTP, SCCM, and MOSS2007) 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..

The file names and sizes appear in the appendix.

For the App-V tests, the application package created was Microsoft Office 2010.

PowerPoint 2010 was the program launched during the test itself.

Laboratory Configuration

The following is the laboratory configuration for this project (see Figure 6, page 19).

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 – HQ2008R2

IIS with FTP Server, Valid HTTPS certificate

Domain controller for TestDomain.local VM2 – SQL08A

SCCM 2007 SP2 Virtual Machine (Downloadable from Microsoft)

VM3 – Winn2008R2-Sharepoint

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 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.


App-V Configuration

1 Physical Server – (HP DL160 G5 dual 2.53 GHz quad core Xeon processors, 48 GB

memory, Windows Server Enterprise Edition R2 w/Hyper-V with the following

virtual servers:

VM1 – Content Server with Windows Server 2008 R2, BranchCache-enabled, used

for serving Microsoft Office 2010 Professional Plus from a folder named

OF2010XP.V01 with a size of 3.2 GB.

OU Named BranchCacheEnabledDistributed mode for holding Distributed mode-

enabled desktops, and GPO applied for Branch Cache and firewall settings.

OU Named BranchCacheEnabledHostedMode for holding Hosted mode-enabled

desktops and GPO applied for Branch Cache and firewall settings.

Figure 6 - Test Network Configuration Diagram

Remote Office

1 Physical Server

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

hard drive and Marvell Gigabit Ethernet.)

Windows Server 2008 Enterprise Edition R2 providing Domain Controller, DHCP

and hosted BranchCache services to the five workstations.

App-V Physical Server (HP Proliant DL360 G6, Dual 2.53 quad core Xeon processors,

16 GB memory, 250 GB Hard Disk, Windows Server Enterprise Edition R2).

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


Five Workstations

Acer Veriton 460 G 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

Office 2007 SP2

Partition 2

Windows 7

Office 2007 SP2

Partition 3

Windows Vista Business SP2

Office 2007 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.

For App-V testing, Microsoft Office 2010 Professional Plus was installed on all PCs

and partitions instead of Microsoft Office 2007.

Network

The PCs are connected to Dell unmanaged 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).4

The charts on the following pages 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 7 (Page 22) the download times for Windows 7 with

BranchCache show consistent download times and are significantly faster than for the

earlier operating systems. Figure 8 (Page 22) shows the reduced application delivery

time delivered with BranchCache when compared to the earlier operating systems.

4 App-V results are presented separately for two reasons. First, the much larger file sizes for the

App-V tests requires charts with different time and bandwidth scales than that used for the other

scenarios. Edison felt that combining two different scales in a single chart was confusing. Second,

while end-users directly experience the benefits of BranchCache when downloading files in their

day-to-day work, the main benefits of the affect BranchCache has on App-V application transfers

are experienced by system administrators. Presenting the App-V results separately, it was felt,

would allow these different audiences to more easily focus on the performance that was most

salient to their interests.


Figure 7 - BranchCache File Download Time Savings

Figure 8 - BranchCache Savings, Application Delivery Time: App-V

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00


Ave

rage

Tim

e t

o O

pe

n A

pp

licat

ion

BranchCache SavingsApplication Delivery Time

App-V

W7 w. BC Enabled

Windows Vista

Windows XP


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

Figure 9 (Page 23) and Figure 10 (Page 24), are also significant, though less consistent

due to the differing nature of the file transfer protocols being accelerated. 5

Figure 9 - BranchCache Bandwidth Utilization Savings

5 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.


Figure 10 - BranchCache Bandwidth Utilization Savings: App-V

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.

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, Page 25) shows the performance in time and bandwidth

summarized above.

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

Average Bandwidth Used

Ave

rgag

e M

B T

ran

sfe

rre

dBranchCache Savings Bandwidth Utilization

App-V

W7 w. BC Enabled

Windows Vista

Windows XP


Table 2 Average Results for Scenarios

HTTP MOSS SCCM SMB App-V

Time

Windows 7 11.50 34.20 45.86 48.52 401.96

Windows XP 107.51 108.06 189.33 158.44 541.00

Windows Vista 108.06 98.50 214.17 108.44 472.72

Windows 7 Advantage

over Windows XP

63% 68% 76% 69% 26%

Windows 7 Advantage

over Windows Vista

63% 65% 79% 55% 15%

Bandwidth

Windows 7 11.50 7.72 13.29 9.46 50.1

Windows XP 22.53 22.80 31.71 22.97 66.48

Windows Vista 22.45 22.91 28.50 17.14 67.16

Windows 7 Advantage

over Windows XP

49% 66% 58% 59% 25%

Windows 7 Advantage

over Windows Vista

49% 66% 53% 45% 15%

Downloading and launching an application (Microsoft PowerPoint 2010), deployed with

App-V had a 26 percent advantage over Windows XP and a 15 percent advantage over

Windows Vista. Bandwidth savings were 25 percent as compared to both older

operating systems (Table 3, Page 25).

Table 3 Average Results for App-V Scenario

App-V

Time

Windows 7 401.96

Windows XP 541.00

Windows Vista 472.72

Windows 7 Advantage over Windows XP 26%

Windows 7 Advantage over Windows Vista 15%

Bandwidth

Windows 7 50.1

Windows XP 66.48

Windows Vista 67.16

Windows 7 Advantage over Windows XP 25%

Windows 7 Advantage over Windows Vista 25%


As can be seen in Table 2 and Table 3, 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.6

Scenarios

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

enabled for each of the five 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 11, Page 27) and the Average Download

Time chart (Figure 12, Page 27) 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.

6It 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 7 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 13 - SMB

Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 28). The test conditions have no effect on Windows 7

bandwidth utilization, as can be seen by the overlap for all Windows 7 results (Figure 14

- SMB Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 29). 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.

7 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 12 - Average Bandwidth Used:

CIFS/SMB Protocol (Smaller is better) Figure 12 - Average Download Time:

CIFS/SMB Protocol (Smaller is better)


Figure 13 - SMB Test Results: Transfer Time


Figure 14 - 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

HTTP or web server.

Results

The chart, Average Download Time (Figure 15, Page 30) 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 showed savings of 49

percent as compared to the bandwidth required by Windows Vista or Windows XP

(Figure 16, Page 31).

Figure 15 - Average Download HTTP Protocol (Smaller is Better)


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

17 - HTTP Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 32 and Figure 18 - HTTP Test Results:

Bandwidth Utilization, Page 33). 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 16 - 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 17 - 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 18 - 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.8 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 19 – Average Download Time: SCCM, Page 34). 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.

8 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 19 - 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 20 –

Average Bandwidth Used: SCCM, Page 35) Nevertheless, Windows 7 used 53 percent

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

Windows XP.

Figure 20- Average Bandwidth Used: SCCM


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

Application Packages (Figure 21 - SCCM Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 37 and Figure

22 - SCCM Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 38). 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 21 - 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 22 - 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 23 – 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 24 – Average

Download Time: MOSS 2007).

Figure 24 - Average Bandwidth Used: MOSS

2007 (Smaller is better.)

Figure 24 - Average Download Time: MOSS

2007 (Smaller is better.)


The chart (Figure 25 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Transfer Time, Page 41) 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 26 - MOSS 2007 Test

Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 42) 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 25 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Transfer Time


Figure 26 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization


Test Scenario 5 – App-V

Microsoft Application Virtualization enables organizations to simplify the management

and deployment of applications to PCs and laptops. It does this by delivering only the

code necessary to start the program when the user clicks the application shortcut.

Additional code is downloaded as needed in the background as the program is used.

In this scenario, Edison created a program package using Microsoft Office 2010 and,

using the App-V deployment tools and Administrative tools, a shortcut to Office was

delivered to a user on each PC for each operating system being tested. For the test, the

user started the PowerPoint 2010 program, the duration from initial click to PowerPoint

being ready to use was timed, and the bandwidth utilization was measured.

Results

The size of the virtualized application files being delivered was much greater than that

for the file downloads performed in the other tests. Naturally, this resulted in much

longer download times. The tests for Windows 7 with BranchCache in Distributed Cache

mode showed little to no performance improvement while the tests for Windows 7 in

Hosted Cache mode showed similar benefits to those achieved in the other download

scenarios. Edison believes that in distributed cache mode, the PCs’ were unable to

provide the performance required by the large files being transferred. It is possible that

PCs with much higher performance characteristics would show greater performance

gains in distributed mode.

The BranchCache savings in bandwidth were very symmetrical. As illustrated in the

chart (Figure 28, Page 44), bandwidth savings was 33 percent for Windows 7 as

compared to Windows Vista and 37 percent as compared to Windows XP. Time savings

for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled over Windows XP was 24 percent. The

savings over Windows Vista was 34 percent (Figure 27, Page 44).


Figure 27: App-V Average Download Time

Figure 28: App-V Average Bandwidth Utilization

0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

W7 w. BC Enabled

Windows Vista Windows XP

Ave

rage

Se

con

ds

to O

pe

n A

pp

licat

ion

Average Download TimeApp-V

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

W7 w. BC Hosted Cache Enabled

Windows Vista Windows XP

Ave

rage

MB

Tra

nsf

err

ed

Average Bandwidth UsedApp-V


The two charts on the following pages show the results of acceleration by starting an

application with App-V. The charts show that application startup on 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 download.


speed of all the transfers: slower speeds require longer transfer times (Figure 29, Page

46). The test conditions have less effect on Windows 7 bandwidth utilization, as can be

seen in Figure 30, Page 47).

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. Edison believes this is due to performance constraints imposed by the client

PCs as compared to the much higher performance server use for hosted mode.


Figure 29 - App-V Transfer Times


Figure 30 - App-V Bandwidth Utilization

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

1 2 3 4 5

MB

Tra

nsf

erre

d

Clients

App-V Test ResultsBandwidth Utilization

Asymmetrical 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Windows XP



Asymmetrical 1.5Mbps/384Kbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache

Symmetrical 1.5Mbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache

Symmetrical 5Mbps Windows 7 Hosted Cache


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.

Starting Microsoft Office 2010 programs such as PowerPoint was 24 percent faster with

Windows 7 and BranchCache in Hosted Cache mode than for Windows XP and 34

percent faster than for Windows Vista. Bandwidth utilization averaged 37 percent less

for Windows 7 versus Windows XP and for 33 percent less for 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 effect on operating system upgrade costs,

possibly sufficient to justify branch office upgrades.

Edison believes that the results support several 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 lower bandwidth costs can offset many SharePoint adoption costs while

providing the recognized business value of the SharePoint portal paradigm.


A third recommendation is to include Microsoft Application Virtualization as part of

any plans for upgrading to Microsoft Office 2010. For many organizations, the extra

infrastructure and effort in configuration of the App-V will pay off very quickly due to

lower administrative and Help desk costs, easier management of application licenses,

and the other benefits offered by App-V. These savings are compounded by bandwidth

and other savings delivered by the combination of Windows 7 and Windows Server

2008 R2 with BranchCache.


Appendices

Test Environment

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

testing, including applicable configuration settings details.

Remote Office Workstations (5)

Model Acer Veriton 460 G

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 – App-V

Model HP Proliant DL360 G6

CPU Dual Intel Xeon E5540 quad core (2.53 GHz)

Memory 16 GB

Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise

Hard Drive 250 GB HD

Roles and Features BranchCache Hosted Cache server

File Server


Remote Office Server

Model Acer Veriton 460 G

CPU Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 (2.93 MHz)

Memory 4 GB


Hard Drive 160GB 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 2003 R2 server running SQL

Server 2008 hosting the SCCM and SharePoint databases

Virtual Server Host – App-V

Model HP Proliant DL360 G6

CPU Intel Xeon E5540 (Quad core 2.53 GHz)

Memory 8 GB

Operating Systems Windows Server 2008 Datacenter with Hyper-V


Hard Drive 1x250 GB SAS

Virtual Machines

Active Directory Domain Controller DNS, WINS, IIS8,

Certificate Authority Server and APP-V 4.6 w/ MS office

2010 APP-V published virtual Application

SCCM and MOSS hosts

Model Gateway DX4200-09

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

Memory 4 GB


Hard Drive 160 GB Western Digital Caviar Blue

Virtual Machines


HQ2008R2 – A Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise system

providing file and web services used as the data source for

SMB and HTTP testing

SQL08A – A Windows Server 2003 R2 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 transfer 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


CIFS/SMB Scenario Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization

MB Transferred

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

in MB


in Seconds

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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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



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


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 121.50 22.57



WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Vista





in MB


in Seconds

W7 w. BC Enabled 11.50 39.93


Windows XP 22.53 107.51




Versus XP 49% 63%

Details


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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


Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384Kbps Windows Vista

Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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








Cache 32.75 5.72

Symmetrical 5 Mbps Windows 7 Distributed

Cache 22.00 9.01


Cache 16.22 7.53

Windows XP

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows

XP 124.00 23.10



Windows Vista

Asymmetrical 1.5 Mbps/384 Kbps Windows

Vista 124.00 23.12





Platform Average Bandwidth Used in

MB

Average Download Time in

Seconds

W7 w. BC Enabled 7.72 34.20


Windows XP 22.80 108.06




Versus XP 66% 68%

Details


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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







in MB

Average Download Time,

in seconds

W7- w. BC-Enabled 13.29 45.86


Windows XP 28.50 214.17




Versus XP 53% 79%


Details


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 1.5 Mbps/384Kbps Windows XP

Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization Data

Transferred

Run 2: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization 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

App-V results

Results Summary

The test results show that overall, Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled is 34 percent

faster than Windows Vista and 24 percent faster than Windows XP. Bandwidth savings

for Windows 7 versus Windows Vista was 33 percent. Windows 7 required 37 percent

less bandwidth than Windows XP.

App-V Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows 7


Windows 7 Hosted Cache 327.30 35.69




Cache 110.90 34.15








App-V Test Results

WAN Condition/OS

File Download

Time in Seconds

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Windows XP


Windows XP 585.50 66.14



Windows Vista






Platform File Download Time in

Seconds

Bandwidth Utilization

MB Transferred

W7- w. BC-Enabled 357.56 42.00


Windows XP 541.00 66.48



Versus Vista -33% -34%

Versus XP -37% -24%

Details


condition. For Hosted Mode, the files on the remote server were pre-cached, so only the

first Windows 7 workstation to download the file, fully utilized WAN bandwidth. The

second download used WAN bandwidth at the start of the download, switching to

cached data during the download process. The other Windows 7 workstations


downloaded the file from the branch workstation’s cache.9 For Windows XP and Vista,

test runs ceased after three successful transfers occurred without significant deviation in

performance (indicated as NTR in the table).


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 9:48 66.14 9:47 66.14

2 9:44 66.14 9:47 66.14

3 9:45 66.14 9:44 66.14

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 12:45 65.58 12:45 65.59

2 12:10 64.37 12:20 64.88

3 12:24 64.88 12:10 64.37

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR

9 On certain occasions, one or more PCs would either consume a greater amount of WAN

bandwidth. Edison could not determine the cause of this behavior using the tools at its disposal.



Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 12:59 71.49 12:55 71.73

2 5:51` 31.46 6:08 34.14

3 6:05 33.03 6:09 34.29

4 5:59 32.18 6:16 34.81

5 5:56 31.73 6:09 33.76


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 9:29 71.58 9:25 72.87

2 4:17 25.51 4:28 27.01

3 4:29 27.11 4:29 27.13

4 4:25 26.41 4:34 27.54

5 4:28 26.04 4:29 26.71


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 14:45 66.7 14:45 66.7

2 12:01 60.36 13:09 64.7

3 13:11 64.68 12:54 64.4

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR



Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 8:36 64.0 8:36 64.0

2 8:18 63.2 8:24 63.2

3 8:21 63.2 8:18 63.2

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 12:46 64.10 12:35 63.14

2 11:32 63.79 11:42 61.88

3 7:50 45.29 8:11 45.17

4 8:09 46.19 8:16 45.62

5 8:04 45.27 8:01 44.25


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 13:05 72.21 11:51 73.22

2 11:43 58.69 5:59 62.75

3 7:20 26.79 6:40 30.80

4 6:21 26.79 10:00 63.19

5 5:57 25.30 6:12 30.15



Workstation

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 3:55 68.0 3:58 68.0

2 3:45 66.8 3:47 66.8

3 3:47 66.8 3:48 66.8

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download

Time in

Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 3:06 60.5 3:06 60.5

2 2:56 58.9 3:01 59.8

3 2:15 55.3 2:18 56.3

4 NTR NTR NTR NTR

5 NTR NTR NTR NTR


Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 3:12 61.34 3:14 61.35

2 2:00 38.47 1:58 38.04

3 1:56 37.32 2:01 38.42

4 1:55 36.57 1:53 36.50

5 1:50 34.87 1:52 35.77



Workstation

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 1:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

Run 1: File

Download Time

in Minutes:

Seconds

Run 2:

Bandwidth

Utilization MB

Transferred

1 2:58 59.85 2:01 61.12

2 1:51 37.54 1:33 25.69

3 1:48 30.57 1:38 30.25

4 1:22 23.24 1:26 21.63

5 1:18 22.16 1:34 29.42

Edison Microsoft Branchcache with App-V White Paper

Documents