Skip Links

Network World

  • Social Web 
  • Email 
  • Close
Clear Choice Test Web front-end devices
Introduction | Complete Net results | Test archive
Inside this test package
WFE product-by-product summary
WFE testing and related articles

Speed traps

Scalability tests push Web front-end box limits.
By David Newman , Network World , 01/16/2006
Newsletter Signup
  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print

While our services tests assessed how well Web front-end devices handled application traffic, our scalability tests can help properly size one of these products for a particular network's needs.

The scalability tests demonstrated the limits of system performance in terms of maximum concurrent-connection capacity, TCP multiplexing ratios and maximum forwarding rates. In all these areas, the test results show big differences among devices.

In the maximum concurrent-connections test, our goal was to determine how many client connections a device could handle. There were major differences among vendors in this test.

To determine connection count, we configured Spirent's Avalanche to emulate as many as 4 million clients running Internet Explorer. Each client opened a TCP connection and requested a 1KB Web object from the Web front-end device's virtual one or more IP addresses (just as a single IP address for, say, www.amazon.com hides dozens or hundreds of servers, all these devices used one virtual IP address as a proxy for the back-end servers on the test bed).

Maximum concurrent TCP connections
Citrix’s NetScaler Application Accelerator set up 4 million concurrent TCP connections, the most of any product tested and the limit of our test bed. F5’s BIG-IP and Foundry’s ServerIron were next, but Foundry says its result is partly a function of the high rate we used in testing, and that its device sets up more than 7 million connections at a lower rate.
Vendor Concurrent TCP Connections
No device (baseline) 4,000,000
Array 700,000
Citrix 4,000,000
Crescendo 900,000
F5 3,499,751
Foundry* 2,699,844
Juniper,
1 system
500,000
Juniper,
4 systems
1,999,969
*Reached rate limit before
connection limit
Click to see:

After receiving the object, clients sat idle for 60 seconds before requesting another object over the same connection. This long "think time," how long a client waits before requesting the next page, allowed us to build up connection count. For all vendors, we kept adding new connections until the device failed to complete some transactions, or until we reached 4 million connections, the limit of our test bed. Even though our goal was a Layer-4 measurement - the number of established TCP connections - we used Layer-7 switching in this and all other tests.

  • Share/Email
  • Tweet This
  • Comment
  • Print
Partner Content

NetScout and analyst Jim Metzler have teamed to deliver a series of IT Briefs on Network and Application Performance Management leveraging research from NetScout's nGenius & Sniffer users.

www.netscout.com

Metzler on Service Delivery Management

Delivering IT business value by evolving our thinking from managing application performance to focusing on services.

Learn More

2009 Handbook of Application Delivery

Successful IT organizations must know how to make the right application delivery decisions in these tough economic times.

Download the Handbook

Metzler on the Modern IP Network

Discusses the growing emphasis on network management and the need to implement a holistic view of the end-to-end experience of the user.

Read the Brief

Comment
Login
Forgot your account info?
Add comment
Anonymous comments subject to approval. Register here for member benefits.
Have a NetworkWorld account? Log in here. Register now for a free account.

Videos

rssRss Feed