Enhanced Branch Office Productivity and WAN Bandwidth Savings

89 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, NY 10003

www.TheEdison.com

212.367.7400

Enhanced Branch Office

Productivity and WAN

Bandwidth Savings with

Microsoft BranchCache

Version 2

Printed in the United States of America.

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

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

errors resulting from its use.

All products are trademarks of their respective owners.

First Publication: March 2010, Version 2: October 2010

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 ........................................................................................... 14

Test Methodology ................................................................................................................... 14

Test Scenarios ...................................................................................................................... 15

Test Data ............................................................................................................................... 19

Laboratory Configuration ...................................................................................................... 19

At Emulated Headquarters ................................................................................................ 19

App-V Configuration ......................................................................................................... 20

Remote Office ...................................................................................................................... 20

Test Results .................................................................................................................................. 22

Summary of Results ................................................................................................................ 22

Scenarios ................................................................................................................................... 27

Test Scenario 1 – CIFS/SMB File Accesses ....................................................................... 27

Test Scenario 2 – HTTP File Downloads .......................................................................... 29

Test Scenario 3 – SCCM Application Package Download............................................. 34

Test Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007 File Access ......................................................................... 40

Test Scenario 5 – App-V ..................................................................................................... 43

Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................................................................ 49

Appendices .................................................................................................................................. 51

Test Environment .................................................................................................................... 51

Test Results .............................................................................................................................. 53

CIFS/SMB Test Results ........................................................................................................... 54

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 54

Details ................................................................................................................................... 55

HTTP Test Results ................................................................................................................... 60

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 60

Details ................................................................................................................................... 61

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 Test Results ....................................................... 65

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 65

Details ................................................................................................................................... 67

SCCM Test Results .................................................................................................................. 70

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 70

Details ................................................................................................................................... 72

App-V Results ......................................................................................................................... 76

Results Summary ................................................................................................................ 76

Details ................................................................................................................................... 77

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

Executive Summary

Organizations that are seeking to improve 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 that supports

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 (WAN) bandwidth utilization levels and slowing file access with

adverse impact on productivity.

Microsoft® Application Virtualization (App-V ) allows organizations to streamline the

deployment of software to the end user. Applications that are 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 it is very time-consuming, making the

practice expensive.

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

address the challenge of downloading files at a remote office. 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 the data is accessed from an intranet site, and it 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 across the WAN. BranchCache

improves performance when copying files between central and remote or branch offices

by using the SMB, HTTP, and HTTPS protocols.

Microsoft commissioned the Edison Group to examine WAN bandwidth savings with

BranchCache. 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

computers running the earlier 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:

Common Internet File System (CIFS) and 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 by 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 server running Microsoft Office SharePoint®

Server 2007 (MOSS 2007), client computers 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

using only 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 when they used BranchCache. The tests included four business use

scenarios: HTTP, MOSS, SCCM, and SMB. A second chart (Figure 2, Page 5) illustrates

the bandwidth savings for the three operating systems for the business use scenario that

uses App-V. 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 that want to improve the productivity of workers in remote offices,

downloading files in less than one third of the time that was 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 organizations run App-V on Windows 7 with

BranchCache, they can obtain the same benefits for their branch offices that App-V offers

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

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 on 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 computer 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 about 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 non-Microsoft validation of performance claims by Microsoft about

BranchCache. It also provides hard metrics that readers can use to determine how

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

remote 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 organizations that are evaluating Windows 7 and assessing strategies for upgrading

their installed base of computers running Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Contents of this Report

This white paper contains the following sections:

The Remote Office Dilemma

This section describes the effect on productivity that is experienced by remote workers

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

from a centrally located servers that can be accessed over the web. For example, these

files might be hosted on servers running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007,


Configuration Management Server 2007, or Microsoft Application Virtualization (App-

V).

Testing BranchCache Performance

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

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

and the 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, in addition to

the test result details.


The Remote Office Dilemma

The Dilemma

Just a few years ago, 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 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 that 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 common. Users are also likely to access

these much larger sized files through 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. Although 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. 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 image footprint for the desktop of a Windows operating system, which will

speed the desktop provisioning. App-V can deliver significant operational savings for


many organizations;1 however, an organization can encounter obstacles when they

attempt to deliver applications to branch offices across a WAN.

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

higher latency of WANs and to the much larger file sizes that are 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 application

acceleration appliances for the WAN. Acceleration appliances can be beneficial where

business-critical applications need acceleration, but such devices can also add significant

cost and complexity to the management of remote offices.

The BranchCache Solution

Microsoft BranchCache is designed to provide the file transfer performance that

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 by using the SMB, HTTP, and HTTPS protocols.

SMB is the protocol that is used to transfer files between shared folders on Windows

networks. HTTP and HTTPS are the protocols that are used by web browsers and many

other applications.

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

copy of the data is accessed from an intranet site, and it 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 across the WAN.

BranchCache operates in two modes:

Distributed Cache mode. 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 mode. In this mode, content is cached as the Hosted Cache at the

branch network on a computer that is running Windows Server 2008 R2. Other client

computers that need the same content retrieve it directly from the Hosted Cache.

Computers that cache the Hosted Cache can run the Server Core installation option

of Windows 2008 R2, and they can host other applications.

1 For more information about App-V see

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

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



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. Only read

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

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

BranchCache requires the Windows 7 Ultimate or Enterprise editions on workstations

and Windows Server 2008 R2 on servers. For a more complete list of servers that support

BranchCache, see BranchCache Overview in the Microsoft TechNet Library

(http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee307962(WS.10).aspx).

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee307962(WS.10).aspx


Testing BranchCache Performance

Edison established a lab environment for testing the performance claims that content

cached with BranchCache 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

earlier Microsoft operating systems, Windows XP Professional and Windows Vista

Business.

These tests are simulated to illustrate the benefits of using BranchCache. Real-world

implementations of BranchCache will experience different results that are dependent

upon many factors, for example, the configuration of the computers in the branch

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

the WAN. 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. According to our past experiences with prereleased software, the performance of

the released versions may be better than the results Edison has documented.

Test Methodology

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

HTTP, and HTTPS protocols, and it offers two branch office configuration modes—

Distributed Cache and Hosted Cache. 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. These

scenarios compared BranchCache in Windows 7 in both modes against the earlier

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 to reflect the recent

releases of App-V version 4.6 and Microsoft Office 2010. In addition, upgrading to

Microsoft Office 2010 and 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 the challenge that is 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

WAN conditions. The following table (Table 1 - WAN Conditions and Use Cases, Page

15) lists and describes the WAN conditions and real-world use cases for each condition.

Table 1 - WAN Conditions and Use Cases

WAN Conditions Real-World Use Case

1.5 Mbps from headquarters to remote

office, 384 Kbps from remote office to

headquarters, 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

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

agreements.

Test Scenarios

The following are the test scenarios that were used for this project. Each of the five

scenarios run in Hosted Cache mode and Distributed Cache mode for Windows 7 with

BranchCache, and each was tested in a lab environment consisting of five desktop

computers. 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 on 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 computer, 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 that were required for this file transfer process.

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

BranchCache hashes according to the Microsoft deployment guide. 2 Each workstation

was mapped to this shared file 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 user clicked the Open button until the image of the first slide appeared

on the screen.

This process was repeated on each workstation for multiple files. The workstations were

rebooted to the next operating system, and the process was repeated.

Scenario 2 – HTTP File Accesses

The HTTP protocol is the protocol of the World Wide Web, and it 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 on), are regularly transferred by 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 treated MOSS as a separate scenario. This was done for two reasons:

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

could be affected by latency inherent in the SharePoint architecture.

The secure version of HTTP (HTTPS) needed to be represented. Many MOSS

installations utilize HTTPS, and we 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. The 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 to Windows XP. On each workstation, a TIFF file

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

2 Microsoft BranchCache Deployment Guide is available on Microsoft TechNet at:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee649232%28WS.10%29.aspx 3 The Microsoft BranchCache Early Adopters Guide is available on Microsoft TechNet at:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd637762%28WS.10%29.aspx


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

Internet Explorer for our results.

This process was repeated for each of the workstations, and we waited 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 by using the Distributed Cache mode. Then, 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. Because 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 the Microsoft 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 the prioritized, throttled, and asynchronous transfer of files by using an 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 that is 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.

Note The released version of BranchCache and the updated SCCM 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 through SCCM. By using the Advertised Applications Control Panel applet,

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

Scenario 4 – MOSS 2007

Companies that are running the Windows and Windows Server operating systems with

the Microsoft Office productivity applications are implementing Microsoft Office

SharePoint Server 2007 at an incredible pace. If a company is not yet using a server farm

with Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007, chances are good that 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 server running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 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 the solution developed by Microsoft for

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

instead of downloading and installing an entire application, only the code that is

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

computer. When the session terminates, the application and its user preferences are

cached in a file-based location on the user's computer. 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

through 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 that are 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 appendices.

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

PowerPoint 2010 was the program launched during the test.

Laboratory Configuration

The following is the laboratory configuration for this project (see Figure 6, page 20). All

operating systems, server, and productivity applications had the latest service packs and

patches applied.

At Emulated Headquarters

One physical server (Dell 2950, dual 1.86 GHz quad core Xeon processors, 16 GB

memory)

Windows Server 2008 R2Enterprise Edition with Hyper-V™ with the following

virtual servers:

VM1 – HQ2008R2

IIS with an FTP server and 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

One physical server (HP DL160 G5 dual 2.53 GHz quad core Xeon processors, 48 GB

memory, Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition with Hyper-V with the following

virtual servers:

VM1 – Content server with Windows Server 2008 R2, enabled with BranchCache,

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 Cache

mode on enabled desktops, and Group Policy objects applied for BranchCache and

firewall settings

OU Named BranchCacheEnabledHostedMode for holding Hosted Cache mode on

enabled desktops and Group Policy objects applied for BranchCache and firewall

settings

Figure 6 - Test Network Configuration Diagram

Remote Office

One Physical Server

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

GB hard disk drive, and Marvell Gigabit Ethernet)

Windows Server 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition 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 2008 R2 Enterprise Edition)

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 computers (Intel Core 2 Duo E7500 processor, 3 GB memory, 160

GB hard disk drive, and Marvell Gigabit Ethernet)

Each workstation has three partitions and a multiple boot configuration

All configurations saved to disk images with Norton Ghost for easy reversion

Partition 1

Windows XP SP3 fully updated through Windows Update

Office 2007 with SP2

Partition 2

Windows 7


Partition 3

Windows Vista Business with SP2


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

with Acronis True Image, which allows systems to be reverted to a pristine state

after each test run

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

computers and partitions instead of Microsoft Office 2007.

Network

The computers are connected to unmanaged Dell 10/100 Ethernet switch

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

Apposite Linktropy 4500 WAN emulator, which routes traffic to the headquarters

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

Belkin IP-enabled KVM switch


Test Results

Summary of Results

Edison believes that the best way to view the test results is by comparing how much less

time and how much less WAN bandwidth in MB is required to transfer files to a branch

office by using Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled rather than using an earlier

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 23) the download times for Windows 7 with

BranchCache show consistent download times, and they are significantly faster than for

the earlier operating systems. Figure 8 (Page 23) shows the reduced application delivery

time for Windows 7 with BranchCache 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 24) and Figure 10 (Page 25), are also significant, although less consistent

due to the differing nature of the File Transfer Protocols being accelerated. 5

Figure 9 - BranchCache Bandwidth Utilization Savings

5 See the previous scenario descriptions or the following results details for more information on

how the File 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 for 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 as 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. However, by using Windows 7

with BranchCache enabled, the file download still required approximately two-thirds

less time and two-thirds less bandwidth than when using 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 the files utilized from 45 to 59 percent less bandwidth than

when using Windows XP or Windows Vista.

The following table (Table 2, Page 26) shows the performance in time and bandwidth

previously summarized.

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 earlier

operating systems (Table 3, Page 26).

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 the file download

time is significant in productivity savings, but the results for bandwidth savings can

have the greatest effect on operational costs.6

Scenarios

The following sections 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

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

included using 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 speed.

Because the results of BranchCache acceleration for Hosted Cache 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 that initiated from within

Microsoft PowerPoint 2007 for files in a shared folder on the network (mounted as Drive

N). The times were based on 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 28) and the Average Download

Time chart (Figure 12, Page 28) show that Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled

requires much less time and bandwidth than 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 Windows Vista over Windows 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 client computers running Windows XP

or Windows Vista take consistent amounts of time 7, and they use the same bandwidth

for each client transfer. The data shows that Windows 7 with BranchCache greatly

accelerates the download.

The – network speed and latency test conditions 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 29). 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 30). The results also clearly show the BranchCache

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

The download time for Windows 7 Distributed Cache mode for the Symmetrical 5 Mbps

WAN condition does not show as great a savings because the faster network speed

shortened the time that was required for the initial file download. The shortest and most

7 The slightly shorter time illustrated for the third client computer is an anomaly of the chart

preparation. For clarity purposes, only the first of two test runs for the first three computers was

selected for the chart. For the SMB scenario, the performance of the third computer was slightly

faster than for the previous two computers. The fourth and fifth computers and the 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)


accelerated download time approached the limits of the available bandwidth for all

three WAN conditions.

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 that initiated from a page hosted on

an HTTP or web server.

Results

The chart, Average Download Time (Figure 15, Page 31) illustrates the 63 percent time

savings that was delivered by Windows 7 with BranchCache over the nearly identical

download times (see appendices for details) that were required by Windows Vista and

Windows XP.

The bandwidth savings for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled showed a savings of

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

(Figure 16, Page 32).

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 33 and Figure 18 - HTTP Test Results:

Bandwidth Utilization, Page 34). The charts show that file downloads to computers

running Windows XP or Windows Vista take consistent amounts of time and use the

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

accelerates the file download time.

The network speed and latency test conditions have a definite effect on the 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 2007 (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, but the files themselves are

transferred by using the SMB protocol. The acceleration affect of BranchCache 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 released version of BranchCache and

an updated SCCM 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 35). Application and

operating system installations and patching can disrupt productivity, So savings of this

order of magnitude can be a major productivity boost.

8 The inability to test SCCM in Hosted Cache mode is what drove the decision to show only

Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled in Distributed Cache 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 earlier operating systems, though perhaps not so spectacularly (Figure 20

– Average Bandwidth Used: SCCM, Page 36). 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 38 and Figure

22 - SCCM Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 39). As in the other scenarios, the

charts show that transfers to client computers running Windows XP or Windows Vista

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.


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 the asymmetrical conditions, thus slowing

the entire process.

This example shows a clear advantage for computers running the Windows 7 operating

system with BranchCache enabled when the computer is downloading applications 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 considerably 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 by

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 bandwidth and time were very symmetrical. As illustrated

in the following chart (Figure 23 – Average Bandwidth Used: MOSS 2007), the

bandwidth savings were the 66 percent for Windows 7 as compared to Windows XP or

Windows Vista. The time savings for Windows 7 with BranchCache enabled over

Windows XP were 68 percent, and the time 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 42) shows the results

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

downloads to computers running Windows Vista 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 server

running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 after 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 computer for the first test run was slightly slower than for the

other computers in either test run. Because 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 Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007

(Figure 26 - MOSS 2007 Test Results: Bandwidth Utilization, Page 43) 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 the results for Windows 7 with BranchCache were nearly identical

for all three test conditions, quickly approaching zero WAN bandwidth utilization.

Organizations with servers running Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 that host

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 the Windows 7 operating system 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 (App-V) enables organizations to simplify the

management and deployment of applications to computers and laptops. It does this by

delivering only the code that is 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 that uses Microsoft Office 2010 and

the App-V deployment tools and administrative tools. A shortcut to Microsoft Office

2010 was delivered to a user on each computer for each operating system being tested.

For the test, the user started the PowerPoint 2010 program, and 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 computers were unable to provide

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

computers with much higher performance characteristics would show greater

performance gains in Distributed Cache mode.

The savings in bandwidth when using BranchCache were very symmetrical. As

illustrated in the chart (Figure 28, Page 45), 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 time savings over Windows Vista was 34 percent (Figure 27, Page 45).


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 computers running

Windows XP or Windows Vista takes consistent amounts of time and uses the same

bandwidth for each transfer, and that Windows 7 with BranchCache greatly accelerates

the download.


the transfers: slower speeds require longer transfer times (Figure 29, Page 47). The test

conditions have less effect on the bandwidth utilization for the Windows 7 operating

system, as can be seen in Figure 30, Page 48).

The download time for Distributed Cache mode for computers running Windows 7 for

the Symmetrical 5 Mbps WAN condition does not show as great a savings, because the

faster network speed shortened the time that was required for the initial file download.

The shortest and most accelerated download time approached the limits of the available

bandwidth for all three WAN conditions. Edison believes that this is due to the

performance constraints imposed by the client computers as compared to the much

higher performance server used for Hosted Cache 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 that were designed to provide

quantified data to 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 with BranchCache than for Windows XP

and 66 percent faster than for Windows Vista. Bandwidth utilization averaged 58

percent less for Windows 7 with BranchCache versus Windows XP and 53 percent less

than Windows Vista.

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

Windows 7 with 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, Edison has made no attempt to calculate

the potential financial savings that could be attributed to lower bandwidth utilization,

but Edison believes that the results support several recommendations for organizations

that are contemplating upgrading their end-user operating systems to Windows 7. These

recommendations are as follows:

Upgrade central servers and branch offices The significant bandwidth savings

that are possible with BranchCache could have an ameliorating effect on

operating system upgrade costs, possibly sufficient to justify branch office

upgrades. We recommend upgrading remotely accessible servers to Windows

Server 2008 R2 and remote branch computers to Windows 7. In addition, add

branch servers that run 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.)

Consider replacing shared folder network designs with SharePoint Whether

an organization utilizes Windows SharePoint Services (WSS, which is available at

no charge) or the more sophisticated and centrally manageable Microsoft Office


SharePoint Server 2007 (MOSS), the productivity benefits of higher transfer

speeds and lower bandwidth costs can offset many SharePoint adoption costs

and provide the recognized business value of the SharePoint portal paradigm.

Include Microsoft Application Virtualization If an organization is planning to

upgrade to Microsoft Office 2010, the extra infrastructure and effort to configure

App-V will pay off very quickly. For example, organizations can expect lower

administrative and Help Desk costs and easier management of application

licenses. These savings are compounded by the savings that are delivered by

running Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 with BranchCache.


Appendices

Test Environment

This section provides details about the equipment and software that was 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 Disk 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 Disk 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 Disk 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 a 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 R2 Datacenter with Hyper-V

Hard Disk 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 disk Drive 1x250 GB SAS

Virtual Machines

Active Directory Domain Controller DNS, WINS, IIS8,

Certificate Authority Server and APP-V 4.6 w/ Microsoft

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 disk 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 databases for SCCM and Microsoft

Office SharePoint Server 2007.

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 a Details table that shows the results of each test run.

In the Summary tables, the results for each platform and each WAN condition are

shown in one table. A second table shows the percent advantage of running 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 and requires 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 that 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 cache. Presuming that our observation

matches the design for BranchCache, 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

Windows 7 with

BranchCache 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 Windows Vista 45% 58%

Versus Windows 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 precached, 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 Windows Vista or Windows 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

Windows 7 with



Windows XP 22.53 107.51





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. Because TCP/IP drops its net utilization when a packet is lost, packets that are lost

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

lost at the end of the file transfer. Windows Vista and Windows 7 improved TCP/IP

stacks recover faster and handle latency better on higher bandwidth connections.

Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 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.


Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 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

Windows 7 with



Windows XP 22.80 108.06





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

Windows 7 with



Windows XP 28.50 214.17






Details


condition. The files on the remote server were precached, 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 Cache 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

Windows 7 with



Windows XP 541.00 66.48



Versus Windows Vista -33% -34%

Versus Windows XP -37% -24%

Details


condition. For Hosted Cache mode, the files on the remote server were precached, 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,


and switched 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 Windows 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

Documents

Enhanced Branch Office Productivity and WAN Bandwidth Savings