text:
Ibm power570 web_sphere_7_ net_benchmark_winsrv2008
Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 vs. IBM ®WebSphere 7 StockTrader Benchmark Report ®7/2/2010© Microsoft Corporation 2010.NET StockTrader Technical Documentation Page 1
This document supports the release of Windows Server® 2008 R2 and the Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0.The information contained in this document represents the current view of Microsoft Corp. on the issues disclosed as ofthe date of publication. Because Microsoft must respond to changing market conditions, this document should not beinterpreted to be a commitment on the part of Microsoft, and Microsoft cannot guarantee the accuracy of anyinformation presented. This document is for informational purposes only. MICROSOFT MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESSOR IMPLIED, IN THIS DOCUMENT.Information in this document, including URL and other Internet Web site references, is subject to change without notice.Unless otherwise noted, the companies, organizations, products, domain names, e-mail addresses, logos, people, places andevents depicted in examples herein are fictitious. No association with any real company, organization, product, domain name,e-mail address, logo, person, place or event is intended or should be inferred. Complying with all applicable copyright laws isthe responsibility of the user. Microsoft grants you the right to reproduce this guide, in whole or in part.Microsoft may have patents, patent applications, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights covering subjectmatter in this document, except as expressly provided in any written license agreement from Microsoft, the furnishing of thisdocument does not give you any license to these patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property.© 2010 Microsoft Corp. All rights reserved.Microsoft, Windows Server, the Windows logo, Windows, Active Directory, Windows Vista, Visual Studio, Internet Explorer,Windows Server System, Windows NT, Windows Mobile, Windows Media, Win32, WinFX, Windows PowerShell, Hyper-V, andMSDN are trademarks of the Microsoft group of companies.The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.
ContentsExecutive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 3Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 .NET StockTrader Sample Application and Performance Kit .................................................................... 5 Multiple Clients with Open Integration to Middle Tier via WCF............................................................... 6 Full Disclosure Notice................................................................................................................................ 6Middle-Tier Hardware Platforms Tested ...................................................................................................... 7 IBM Power 570 (based on Power6 Architecture) running IBM AIX 5.3 .................................................... 7 Hewlett-Packard C7000 Blade System with 4 HP ProLiant BL460c blades ............................................... 7Test Methodology and Reporting Metrics .................................................................................................... 9 Web Application Benchmark .................................................................................................................... 9 Trade Middle Tier Web Service Benchmark and WSTest Web Service Benchmark ............................... 10 Running the Benchmarks and Capturing Reported Metrics ................................................................... 10 .NET Framework 4.0 vs. .NET Framework 3.5 ......................................................................................... 11Fair Benchmark Comparisons between .NET StockTrader and IBM WebSphere 7 Trade .......................... 12 Database Access Technology/Programming Model ............................................................................... 12 Caching .................................................................................................................................................... 12 Enable Long Run Support ........................................................................................................................ 13 Database Load......................................................................................................................................... 13 Database Configuration .......................................................................................................................... 14 Test Methodology for the Trade Web Application Benchmark .............................................................. 14 Test Scripts .......................................................................................................................................... 14 Simulated User Settings ...................................................................................................................... 15 IBM HTTP Server vs. Port 9080 ........................................................................................................... 16 Web Application Pages Exercised by the Test Scripts......................................................................... 16 Test Methodology for the Trade Web Services Benchmark and WSTest Web Service Benchmark ....... 17 Test Scripts .......................................................................................................................................... 17 IBM HTTP Server vs. Port 9080 ........................................................................................................... 17Benchmark Results...................................................................................................................................... 18 Trade Web Application Test.................................................................................................................... 18 Trade Web Application Benchmark Discussion ...................................................................................... 19IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 1
Trade Middle Tier Web Services Test ..................................................................................................... 21 Trade Middle Tier Web Services Benchmark Discussion ........................................................................ 22 WSTest Benchmark ................................................................................................................................. 24 WSTest Benchmark Discussion ............................................................................................................... 25Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 27Appendix A: Pricing ..................................................................................................................................... 28 Hardware and Operating System Pricing ................................................................................................ 28 IBM Power 570.................................................................................................................................... 28 Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 ................................................................................................. 31 Pricing for the Application Server Used in the Tests .............................................................................. 32 IBM WebSphere 7/IBM Power 570 ..................................................................................................... 32 IBM WebSphere 7/ Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 ................................................................. 32 Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for IBM WebSphere 7/AIX on IBM Power 570 as tested................................................................................................................................ 33 Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for IBM WebSphere 7/Windows Server 2008 on Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 as tested ............................................................ 33 Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for Microsoft .NET/Windows Server 2008 on Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 as tested ....................................................................... 33Appendix B: Tuning Parameters................................................................................................................. 34 WebSphere Tuning – IBM Power 570/AIX .............................................................................................. 34 IBM HTTP Server Tuning AIX ............................................................................................................... 34 WebSphere Tuning – Windows Server 2008 R2 ..................................................................................... 35 IBM HTTP Server Tuning Windows Server 2008 R2 ............................................................................ 36 .NET Tuning ............................................................................................................................................. 36IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 2
Executive SummaryThis paper presents updated benchmark results based on extensive performance and scalability testingof Microsoft .NET Framework 4.0 using the .NET StockTrader benchmark workload as well as the WSTestworkload. The .NET 4.0 framework benchmark results are compared to the equivalent Java Enterpriseworkloads running on IBM WebSphere 7, both on a 64-bit Power6/AIX server and on Windows Server2008 R2. Both the peak throughput rate and the relative cost of each platform are compared, so thatcustomers can better understand both the performance and cost characteristics of the platforms tested.All tests on Windows Server were conducted on an HP BladeSystem 7000 running Windows Server 2008R2 release (64-bit), with the final RTM release of the .NET Framework 4.0 (64-bit) which is downloadablefor free on MSDN. The IBM WebSphere/Java tests were conducted using the latest IBM WebSphere 7.0release, 64-bit. The entire benchmark kit, including .NET source code and Java source code for theStockTrader and WSTest workloads is downloadable for free at http://msdn.microsoft.com/stocktrader.This kit also includes a Capacity Planner/multi-agent benchmark tool that customers can use to performtheir own testing against .NET 4.0, IBM WebSphere and Oracle WebLogic.Platforms Tested  IBM Power 570 with IBM WebSphere 7 and AIX 5.3  Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 with IBM WebSphere 7 and Microsoft Windows Server 2008  Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 with Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008The table below summarizes the results of the testing, including the cost of each platform astested. Detailed pricing data is included in Appendix A.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 3
IBM Power 570 Hewlett Packard Hewlett Packard with WebSphere BladeSystem BladeSystem 7 and AIX 5.3 C7000 with C7000 with (8 cores) WebSphere 7 and Microsoft .NET Windows Server 4.0 and Windows 2008 R2 Server 2008 R2Total Hardware +Operating System $215,728.08 $50,161.00 $50,161.00CostsMiddle TierApplication Server $44,400.00 $37,000.00 $0.00Licensing CostsTotal Middle TierSystem Cost as $260,128.08 $87,161.00 $50,161.00TestedTrade WebApplication 8,016 transactions 11,121 transactions 11,020 transactionsBenchmark per second per second per secondSustained Peak TPSTrade Middle TierWeb Service 10,571 transactions 14,468 transactions 22,316 transactionsBenchmark per second per second per secondSustained Peak TPSWSTest EchoListTest Sustained 10,536 transactions 15,872 transactions 23,772 transactionsPeak TPS per second per second per secondIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 4
IntroductionTo perform the comparative analysis for these three application server platforms, the performanceof three core workloads is examined on each platform tested: 1. Data-driven Web application. This comparison is based on a WebSphere 7 implementation of the IBM Trade performance benchmark application compared to the .NET StockTrader 4.0 benchmark application based on the .NET Framework 4.0. 2. Middle-tier Web Service benchmark with middle-tier business logic and database transactions. This comparison is based on a WebSphere 7 implementation of the IBM Trade performance benchmark application compared to the .NET StockTrader 4.0 benchmark application, testing the middle tier Web Service layer using a Web-Service based benchmark client. 3. Web Service Benchmark based on WSTest. This benchmark uses the WSTest 1.5 benchmark workload (as originally defined by Sun Microsystems) to focus on just raw Web Service performance, with no business logic or middle tier data access. As such, this test focuses on just the JAX-WS performance of IBM WebSphere 7 compared to the performance of the equivalent .NET 4.0 Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) Web Services..NET StockTrader Sample Application and Performance KitAll sources are downloadable from MSDN as part of the .NET StockTrader sample application,available at http://msdn.microsoft.com. This download includes:  The IBM WebSphere 7-optimized Trade benchmark application and Java source code.  The IBM WebSphere 7-optimized WSTest 1.5 benchmark and Java source code based on JAX-WS.  The .NET StockTrader 4.00 benchmark application and source code based on ASP.NET and WCF 4.0.  The .NET implementation of the WSTest 1.5 benchmark and source code based on WCF 4.0.  The Capacity Planner multi-agent benchmark tool, including source code, which enables customers to test the Web Service workloads (both for Trade and for WSTest) on their own, using the hardware/software platform of their choosing.For the benchmark comparisons using the IBM WebSphere Trade application (originally created byIBM as a best-practice performance application for IBM WebSphere) , Microsoft created anapplication that is functionally equivalent to the IBM WebSphere Trade application, both in termsof user functionality and middle-tier database access, transactional and messaging behavior. Thisapplication was created using best-practice programming techniques for .NET and the MicrosoftApplication Development platform. The resulting application, the .NET StockTrader, is nowpublished on MSDN as a best-practice .NET enterprise application athttp://msdn.microsoft.com/stocktrader. The .NET StockTrader is a service-oriented application thatIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 5
utilizes Windows Communication Foundation (WCF) for its underlying remoting and messagingarchitecture. The user interface is an ASP.NET/C# Web application that is equivalent to the IBMWebSphere Trade Java Server Pages (JSP) application. Additionally, the middle-tier services,written in C#, mirror the functionality and transactional characteristics of the backend IBMWebSphere Trade services which are based on JAVA EE 5 and the IBM WebSphere 7 applicationserver. Microsoft also modified the IBM WebSphere Trade 6.1 application to take advantage ofIBM WebSphere 7, including the use of a streamlined JSP/Servlet/JDBC architecture (vs. EJBs), andthe latest JAX-WS Java Enterprise Web Services software stack.For the benchmark comparisons using the WSTest workload, Microsoft created the equivalent WebServices using IBM WebSphere 7 and JAX-WS; as well as a C# implementation based on Microsoft.NET and WCF Web Services. These sources are also included in the .NET StockTrader download onMSDN.Multiple Clients with Open Integration to Middle Tier via WCFAs a service-oriented application based on WCF, multiple interoperability scenarios are enabledwith the .NET StockTrader. Since both the IBM WebSphere 7-based Trade application and the .NETStockTrader application expose their middle-tier services as industry-standard Web Services, thetwo applications can be seamlessly integrated with no code changes required. The JSP Trade front-end application can fully utilize the .NET middle tier services and messaging capabilities of the .NETStockTrader; and the ASP.NET StockTrader front-end application can fully utilize the Java-basedWebSphere 7 Trade middle tier services and messaging capabilities. This interoperability is possiblewith the .NET StockTrader since WCF, Microsoft’s component remoting and distributed applicationprogramming model, is fundamentally based on open Web Service standards including SOAP, XMLand the latest WS-* industry standards. In addition to the ASP.NET Web based application thatintegrates via services with the middle tier, the sample also includes a Windows PresentationFoundation (WPF) desktop client (also developed in C#), that provides a smart-client interface tothe middle tier. The WPF client can also seamlessly connect to either .NET middle tier services, orthe IBM WebSphere 7 Trade middle tier services simply by changing the services URL in theconfiguration page—no code changes are required to achieve this interoperability.Full Disclosure NoticeThe complete source code, test script flow and all testing methodology for this benchmark are availableonline. Any reader may download and view the actual code for all implementations tested, and mayfurther perform the benchmark for themselves to verify the results. The benchmark kit can bedownloaded from http://msdn.microsoft.com/stocktrader. Extensive time was taken to generateresults that represent optimal tuning for the platforms tested, and we are quite confident in the results.We encourage customers to download each kit and perform their own comparative testing andfunctional and technical reviews of each workload tested.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 6
Middle-Tier Hardware Platforms TestedA key goal of the testing was to document the performance and relative cost of IBM WebSphere 7running on an IBM Power 570 server (Power6-based) vs. IBM WebSphere 7 on a Hewlett PackardBladeSystem (Intel-based) running Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2; and then to compare theseresults to the identical workloads running on the HP BladeSystem with Microsoft .NET and WindowsServer 2008 R2. Complete pricing details, including hardware and software costs, are documented inAppendix A of this paper. For the first two workloads, which include database access, each platform wastested against the same database hardware and disk configuration, which was carefully monitored toensure the databases were never a bottleneck for any middle-tier platform tested. In addition, networkmonitoring was carefully conducted to ensure the network was never an artificial bottleneck. Hence,the performance measured accurately captures the peak TPS rate achieved on the middle tier hardwareand software platform tested. In all cases, server CPU saturation rates were at or above 96% CPUutilization at peak TPS, reflecting the fact no external bottleneck (database, network) artificiallylimited the results achieved.Additionally, in all testing, database CPU processor utilization remained below 50%, with no significantdisk queuing.IBM Power 570 (based on Power6 Architecture) running IBM AIX 5.3  8 IBM Power6 cores, operating at 4.2GHz  32 GB RAM  AIX 5.3  4 x 1 GB NICsHewlett-Packard C7000 Blade System with 4 HP ProLiant BL460c blades  4 Hewlett Packard ProLiant BL460c blades  Each blade has one Quad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5450 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) Processor  Each blade has 32 GB RAM  Each blade is running Microsoft Windows Server 2008 R2/64-bit  Each blade has 2 x 1 GB NICsFor the Trade Web Application benchmark and the Trade Web Services benchmark, two separatedatabases are utilized to ensure enough database and disk I/O capacity to handle the large volume oftransactions each platform is able to produce.  For the IBM WebSphere 7 on IBM Power 570 platform tests for the Web application and Trade Web Services test, two instances of IBM WebSphere (nodes) are running on the IBM Power 570 server, each configured to communicate with a separate and dedicated backend trade database. IBM DB2 v9.5 Enterprise Edition (64-bit, Windows Server) is used for each of these databases, configured on identical hardware (see the database section for details).  The WSTest benchmark does not utilize a database; a single instance of IBM WebSphere 7 was used on the Power 570 server and on each HP Blade.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 7
 For the IBM WebSphere 7 on HP BladeSystem C7000 platform tests (Windows Server 2008 R2), one instance of IBM WebSphere is running per blade, with two blades communicating to one of the DB2 databases, and two blades communicating to the other dedicated IBM DB2 database.  For the Microsoft .NET/Windows Server 2008 platform tests on the HP BladeSystem C7000, a single .NET 4.0 CLR instance is running on each blade. Two servers are communicating to one database, two servers to the second database. The databases used for the .NET tests are Microsoft SQL Server 2008, 64-bit, on Windows Server 2008 R2. They run on the exact same hardware (servers, disks) as the IBM DB2 9.5 databases used in the WebSphere 7 tests.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 8
Test Methodology and Reporting MetricsFor each result, we report a peak sustained transaction per second (TPS) throughput rate as averagedover a 30 minute measurement period as tracked by the testing tool. For the Web Applicationperformance test, HP Mercury LoadRunner was used to drive load and capture the results. For the twoWeb Service workloads (Trade Web Services and WSTest); the .NET Capacity Planner (provided for freewith the .NET StockTrader download) was used to drive load and capture results.Web Application BenchmarkIn the Mercury LoadRunner test cases, 32 physical client machines (1.2 GHz, 512MB RAM) were used torun the test scripts, each client driving several hundred distinct users with a one-second think time.Figure 1: Test bed used for the Web Application benchmark using IBM WebSphere 7 Trade and Microsoft .NET StockTraderWeb applications. There are two distinct hardware platforms that make up the System Under Test (SUT); however, the HPBladeSystem runs both the IBM WebSphere 7 Trade workload, and the Microsoft .NET StockTrader workload; representingthree total SUTs. The databases are configured with plenty of capacity for all systems tested, and are not part of the SUTs.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 9
Trade Middle Tier Web Service Benchmark and WSTest Web Service BenchmarkIn the .NET Capacity Planner Web Service tests, 10 distinct clients were used to drive load (Intel quad-core systems @2.4 GHz) with a 0.1 second think time.Figure 2: Test bed used for the two Web Service benchmarks. Note the databases are only utilized for the Trade Web Servicetest; as the WSTest benchmark involves no business logic or database access. There are two distinct hardware platforms thatmake up the System Under Test (SUT); however, the HP BladeSystem runs both the IBM WebSphere 7 Trade and JavaWSTest workloads, and the Microsoft .NET StockTrader and .NET WSTest workloads; representing three total SUTs for eachof the two Web Service tests. The databases are configured with plenty of capacity for all systems tested, and are not part ofthe SUTs.Running the Benchmarks and Capturing Reported MetricsLoad balancing is achieved across the 4 HP blades (for both .NET and IBM WebSphere 7) using WindowsNetwork Load Balancing, built into Microsoft Windows Server 2008. In all cases, users are added to thesystem with iterative test runs until peak throughput is obtained. Extensive benchmark runs were doneIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 10
prior to measurement to ensure proper tuning of the middle tier systems. For each of the threeworkloads, and across all SUTs tested, we report the peak sustained TPS rate, and also a calculateddollar cost per TPS (price performance metric) so customers can better understand what they arepaying for that performance using a standard normalized metric: cost of platform divided by peak TPSrate measured. This calculation mirrors how testing organizations such as the Transaction ProcessingCouncil (TPC) report price performance metrics.The cost calculations are based on the middle tier application server software licensing costs andhardware acquisition costs of the middle tier systems as tested. Notes and details on the pricing of themiddle tier application servers are included in the Appendix, and prices are based on published pricingfrom each vendor or as purchased from authorized resellers.Customers should understand that full .NET capabilities are included in every edition of Windows Server2008 R2, and upgraded versions of .NET are made available for free download from MSDN (for example,.NET 4.0 as tested here). Hence, there is no additional or separate application server cost associatedwith a .NET application; while commercial JAVA EE 5 application servers such as WebSphere areseparately licensed (and typically quite expensive) products. The dollar cost per TPS rates might,therefore, surprise some readers.It is also important to remember that this is a test of specific workloads based on the IBM WebSphereTrade application and equivalent .NET StockTrader application; and the Java and .NET WSTestworkloads. Each of these workloads, however, utilizes most (if not all) of the commonly deployedarchitectural building blocks used in common enterprise application scenarios..NET Framework 4.0 vs. .NET Framework 3.5Finally, the .NET results presented here are for the current .NET Framework 4.0 version running onWindows Server 2008 R2 with IIS 7.5. For all tests, however, benchmark runs were also completed on.NET Framework 3.5, the previous version of the .NET Framework, also running on Windows Server 2008R2. All .NET 4.0 results in these tests were equivalent in performance (with <5% difference in any test)to the .NET Framework 3.5 results.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 11
Fair Benchmark Comparisons between .NET StockTrader andIBM WebSphere 7 TradeSince each application supports many different configurations, it is very important to understand whatconstitutes a fair comparison. The configurations compared must be equivalent. This means that theapplications must produce the exact same functionality and processing behavior in the configurationscompared. You cannot, for example, compare one application running with caching and the other withno caching. The .NET StockTrader, while based on .NET and not JAVA EE 5, was designed to mirror mostof the IBM Trade configurations possible with this testing goal in mind. The WebSphere 7-optimizedTrade application, with Java source provided with the .NET StockTrader download, runs in the fastestconfiguration possible: Java Server Pages, Servlets, and straight JDBC database access with no EnterpriseJava Beans.Database Access Technology/Programming ModelWebSphere 7 Trade:  JDBCThe JDBC mode eliminates the Entity Beans and CMP, and instead uses direct JDBC calls to the database.Java model classes are used to pass data between the logical tiers in the application..NET StockTrader:  ADO.NETThe ADO.NET implementation uses C# model classes to pass data between tiers. It uses ADO.NETDataReaders isolated in a separate data access layer (DAL) as a best-practice performance programmingpractice, and to maintain clean separation of database logic from the other tiers of the application.CachingWebSphere 7 Trade  WebSphere is configured for Servlet Caching, and only the Market Summary JSP fragment is cached. The cache is renewed on a 3 minute cycle (absolute expiration), as defined in the WebSphere Cachespec.xml file. All other elements of the application are not cached, database interactions occur on every request. This fragment caching is necessary, since the Market Summary SQL query is very heavyweight, and with any real data load, would quickly bring the database and the application to a crawl if run on every visit to the home page. Since the query is the same in the .NET StockTrader application, the same is true for .NET StockTrader. For benchmark runs, we tuned to cache to a 3 minute absolute expiration in both cases..NET StockTrader The .NET StockTrader uses the .NET cache API (output caching specifically) to cache the Market Summary control (fragment) for 3 minutes (absolute expiration). We chose not to implementIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 12
further caching in the application because it is simply not realistic. While WebSphere Trade can cache stock quotes, account data, portfolio data and the like (and .NET StockTrader could too if implemented), the simple fact is that this is not a realistic approach or “cache policy” for this application. Consider that the IBM cache, while distributed (it can keep cached items in sync across clustered servers), is not invalidated by the data source itself. Hence, an update to a database table by any other application using the same database would result in possibly corrupt data, or at least presenting incorrect “stale” data to users in the application. Unless a customer is willing to direct all database updates/deletes/inserts through the same WebSphere instances, data on the middle tier would quickly become out of sync with the actual database. In other words, such a strategy keeps the organization from building new applications on other platforms against a common database. Market Summary information is fine to cache, since its read-only and can stand to be several seconds stale; user account balances and stock price information used on trades cannot be stale. Hence, the .NET StockTrader does not implement further caching beyond Market Summary.Enable Long Run SupportIBM WebSphere 7 Trade  OffThis setting was introduced to Trade with WebSphere Trade 6.1, apparently because customers runningthe benchmark for long periods of time saw steady degradation of performance as user accounts startedto contain more and more orders. This resulted in heavier queries, and large and steadily increasingamounts of data being passed between tiers and formatted into the account summary page. Hence,IBM created this setting. However, since our test database is loaded with many more user accounts,neither the WebSphere 7 version of Trade or the .NET StockTrader have an issue in running benchmarksover extended periods of time under heavy load..NET StockTraderThere is no equivalent setting for .NET StockTrader; instead we ran the benchmark for both applicationsagainst a larger, much more realistic data load (500,000 accounts, 5 order per account, 100,000 quotes).We provide a database loader (written in .NET Windows Forms) to load both SQL Server 2008, Oracle11G, and DB2 V9.5. This loader program will also reset the database between benchmark runs to thesame starting state by deleting added data records.Database LoadAs discussed, we used a default load for all benchmark runs (reset between runs) of 500,000 accounts, 5orders/holdings per account, and 100,000 quotes. This is much more realistic than the IBM defaultsettings for Trade.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 13
Database ConfigurationThe IBM WebSphere 7 Trade application was tested against an all-IBM configuration, using IBM DB2V9.5 (Enterprise Edition) as the backend databases, and the latest IBM DB2 V9.5 JDBC drivers for dataaccess. The .NET StockTrader was tested against an all-Microsoft setup, with backend SQL Server 2008databases (Enterprise Edition). The benchmark is not a database benchmark: enough capacity wasemployed for the database hardware to ensure it was not a bottleneck in any benchmark run. For boththe Trade Web Application performance benchmark and the Trade Web Services benchmark, twobackend databases were deployed to eliminate possible database contention under high TPS rates. Eachdatabase was deployed to the same two 64-bit Windows Server 2008 servers. Storeage is a high-capacity, high-speed HP StorageWorks EVA 4400 Disk Array with a total of 96 15K drives in a RAID 5configuration.Database Server Specification2 x HP BL680c G5 blades  Each blade configured with 4 Quad-Core Intel XEON CPUs, @2.4GHZ (16 cores in each blade)  Each blade configured with 64 GB RAM  Each blade configured with 4 x 1GB NICs  Each blade running IBM DB 9.5 Enterprise Edition 64-bit and Microsoft SQL Server 2008 64-bit  Each blade running Microsoft Windows Server 2008 64-bit, Enterprise Edition  Each blade has 2 4GB HBAs for fiber/sans access to the EVA 4400 storage.Database Storeage Specification  HP StorageWorks EVA 4400 Disk Array  96 15K drives total  4 logical volumes consisting of 24 drives each  Database server 1: Logical Volume 1 for logging  Database server 1: Logical Volume 2 for database  Database server 2: Logical Volume 3 for logging  Database server 2: Logical Volume 4 for databaseAll tuning steps were followed for DB2 according to the IBM Trade 6.1 documentation, however,additional logging space was configured given the larger data load. The equivalent drive space wasconfigured for SQL Server logging. The database disk usage was closely monitored to ensure each runcould complete without requiring the database to extend the logging or data file space during abenchmark run. This is an important consideration for custom tests.Test Methodology for the Trade Web Application BenchmarkTest ScriptsFor the Web Application test, Mercury LoadRunner was used to record test scripts—browserinteractions that exercise most of the functionality in the application. These were run across 32 clientIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 14
machines (500 MHz Windows XP desktops with 512 MB RAM). User agents were configured to run witha one second think time between each request. Each benchmark run included a warm up run to get tosteady state, and a 30 minute measurement period. TPS rates were determined by LoadRunner byaveraging across the 30 minutes. Error rates were monitored to ensure they remained at less than .01%during the measurement period. User loads were run for each application up to a number thatrepresented peak throughput for that configuration, as determined in many iterative runs (literallyhundreds) during the tuning stages. Extensive time was spent tuning IBM WebSphere (see theappendix) to achieve peak throughput for the software/hardware configuration tested. IBM does notpublish pre-set tuning guides for Trade, and developers must iteratively test and tune the various knobsin WebSphere (there are many) to get to an optimal setup for a given hardware configuration andsoftware workload. .NET does not require nearly as much tuning, and in general will scale quite well outof the box, given a properly coded application. Some tuning was applied, however, and this isdocumented in detail along with the WebSphere tuning in the appendix.In general, it is fairly straightforward to recognize an in-properly tuned system for both platforms. Givenenough database capacity and network capacity, each application server running under load should beable to reach close to full saturation (~100% CPU saturation) when properly tuned, assuming goodvertical scaling of the technology/OS across processors, and no external bottlenecks. It is a requirementto iteratively test after adjusting, individually, the core tuning settings for the application, to determinepeak throughput and user loads that achieve peak throughput (neither over saturating or undersaturating the middle tier server being tested). With WebSphere 7, these tuning settings are extensive,including several different thread pools, connection pools for databases and queue connection factories,Java heap sizes, and the like. We are quite confident in the results and the system tuning applied, as inall tests servers under test achieved between 96% and 100% CPU saturation at peak TPS. However,should IBM recommend different (specific) settings, we will be happy to re-run the benchmark andpublish new results with these settings. Customers can also run the benchmark—it is a great way toreally judge the capacity of the two platforms for a realistic workload, and then to judge the cost of eachplatform and compare the cost to the results achieved.Simulated User SettingsMercury agents were set to not download images (this is not a web server/network I/O benchmark)during runs. They make requests to the application server, and all processing is completed and just theHTML returned to the agent. This reduces the overhead on the agent machines and network, and helpsensure the 32 client machines used in the testing never become an artificial bottleneck. Just asimportantly, the agents were configured to reset connections between iterations, to simulateconstantly new users logging into the application, and more fully exercise the underlying networkingstacks and HTTP keep alive system that the application servers and Web servers use to support largeconcurrent user bases. Too many benchmarks are simply run with 10-15 threads, no think times and nonetwork resets between script iterations. These types of benchmarks often produce very different(often over-inflated) results than real world usage conditions. Our settings are meant to much moreclosely mimic the real world. Think times (even if just one second) and connection resets betweeniterations make all the difference here.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 15
IBM HTTP Server vs. Port 9080When benchmarking IBM WebSphere, it is important to understand that while WebSphere provides anin-process HTTP listener service (port 9080, by default), IBM best practice recommended deploymentsare in conjunction with the full-blown IBM HTTP Server (a repackaged version of Apache). Hence, for allconfigurations, we used IBM HTTP Server as packaged with WebSphere, configured with the WebSpherePlug-in. On the .NET side, we used Microsoft Internet Information Services 7.0 (IIS 7), also co-locatedwith the server being tested. IBM HTTP Server tuning details for Windows and AIX are included in theAppendix.Web Application Pages Exercised by the Test ScriptsThe test scripts were designed to drive load on the system in a way that exercises most functionality inthe application, and puts a heavier emphasis on transactions; such as adding new registered users andbuying stocks. The precise flow of the test scripts (exactly the same for all test runs on all platforms) islisted below. A one second think time was used between all URL requests, and in the results, a‘transaction’ is defined as the successful completion of the URL request to the server, with validresponse/HTML returned.Part 1 (Existing User)  Login random registered user (1 to 500,000 users loaded in database; the login includes in both apps a redirect to the home page, and all the logic to login and display home page)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Visit Account Page (no account update performed)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Visit Portfolio Page  Visit Home Page  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Logout the Registered user via logout pagePart 2 (New User—run in sequence after Part 1)  Register a new user/submit registration form (this also logs new user in with redirect/display of home page)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Visit Account Page (no account update performed)IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 16
 Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Buy a random stock symbol (1 to 100,000 stock symbols in database; buy operation involves a direct post/submit to the order submission pages, which submit the order for all backend processing)  Visit Portfolio Page  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Buy a random stock symbol (1 to 100,000 stock symbols in database; buy operation involves a direct post/submit to the order submission pages, which submit the order for all backend processing)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Buy a random stock symbol (1 to 100,000 stock symbols in database; buy operation involves a direct post/submit to the order submission pages, which submit the order for all backend processing)  Visit Account Page (no account update performed)  Request random quote (1 to 100,000 distinct quotes loaded in database; one post performed with 1 stock requested)  Buy a random stock symbol (1 to 100,000 stock symbols in database; buy operation involves a direct post/submit to the order submission pages, which submit the order for all backend processing)  Visit Portfolio Page  Visit Home Page  LogoutTest Methodology for the Trade Web Services Benchmark and WSTest Web ServiceBenchmarkTest ScriptsFor these tests, the .NET Capacity Planner tool (a Web Service load-generating client included with the.NET StockTrader download) was used to capture average TPS rates over a 30 minute measurementinterval. 10 quad-core systems were used to drive load, each running the agent software. Each agentwas running between 50 and 300 user threads, operating at a 0.1 second think time. Iterative testingwas done to determine user loads that resulted in near 100% server saturation and peak sustained TPSrates over the 30 minute measurement interval. For the Trade Web Services tests, the Capacity Plannerwas set to use the Transaction-Light script, of the three selectable scripts in the tool. For the WSTesttests, the message size was set to 20.IBM HTTP Server vs. Port 9080As with the Trade Web Application benchmark, IBM WebSphere was configured with the IBM HTTPServer. Similarly, the .NET WCF services were hosted via the IIS 7 web server.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 17
Benchmark ResultsTrade Web Application TestFigure 3: Peak TPS Rates for the Web Application Test. IBM WebSphere 7 Trade is running using JSPs/Servlets with directJDBC access to the databases. Microsoft .NET StockTrader is running using ASP.NET/Web Forms and ADO.NET access to thedatabases. Mercury LoadRunner is used to drive Http requests to the system under test, with the html pages returned to thevirtual users.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 18
Figure 4: Price Performance Ratio for the Web Application Test. See appendix for pricing calculations, which includes thehardware and software costs of the middle tier application server as tested.Trade Web Application Benchmark DiscussionThis benchmark tests the complete Web applications for the IBM WebSphere 7 version of the Tradebenchmark; and the .NET StockTrader benchmark. As such it shows the relative performance of acomplete data-driven Web application across the three platforms tested. For both applications, theWeb tier directs business service operations to the business service classes, and for most pages, thereare several such operations per page, each with distinct database calls. In both applications, calls intothe business service class from the Web tier and from the business service class into the data accessclass are made synchronously, and there are the same number of calls for each equivalent page across.NET and Java applications.For the IBM WebSphere 7 version, a combination of Java Server Pages and Servlets are used to createthe data-driven HTML pages for the user. The primary Servlet invokes a logical business service classwhich in turn invokes a separate database access class. The database access class in turn uses IBM’sJDBC driver for DB2 v9.5 to directly access the remote IBM DB2 databases. The entire application isexecuting within an IBM WebSphere JVM instance per logical WebSphere node.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 19
For the .NET StockTrader, ASP.NET Web Forms are used to invoke a logically partitioned business serviceclass, which in turn accesses a logically partitioned data access class. ADO.NET is used with the .NETProvider for SQL Server to access the Microsoft SQL Server 2008 databases. The entire application isexecuting within a single .NET CLR worker process instance per .NET/Windows Server 2008 node.The following conclusions can be drawn for this benchmark workload:  .NET on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by 37%, yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 419% more (in absolute dollars) than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  IBM WebSphere 7 on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by 39%, yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 198% more (in absolute dollars) than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  Overall .NET on Windows Server 2008 shows by far the best price performance metric. IBM WebSphere 7 on IBM Power 570 has a price performance metric over 8 times higher than Microsoft .NET on Windows Server 2008. This means that for the performance actually delivered, IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server is actually over 7 times as expensive (in dollars per TPS) than running the same workload on Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008 deployed to the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 20
Trade Middle Tier Web Services TestFigure 5: Peak TPS Rates for the Trade Middle Tier Web Service Test. The .NET Capacity Planner Web Service test tool is usedto drive Web Service requests (SOAP requests) to the server, with the web service responses returned to the virtual users.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 21
Figure 6: Price Performance Ratio for the Web Service Test. See appendix for pricing calculations, which includes thehardware and software costs of the middle tier application server as tested.Trade Middle Tier Web Services Benchmark DiscussionThis test is a Web Service workload, with backing business logic and database access and databasetransactions defined within the middle tier Web Service operations. This benchmark also tests theTrade/.NET StockTrader application; however, it tests the middle tier service operations via remote WebService access. The service tier consists of a Web Service façade built on top of the business serviceoperations of the IBM Trade and .NET StockTrader applications. It is important to note that in thisbenchmark, unlike the previous Web Application benchmark, the definition of a “transaction” (for TPSrates) is finer-grained than in the previous test. In this test, the peak throughput is measured on allplatforms tested as a single remote Web Service request against the middle tier business operations. Inthe previous test, the throughput is measured as complete web page being returned to the benchmarkclients; and each Web page has on average multiple in-process requests to the middle tier, with noXML/Web Service serialization; but on average more business service operations and database queriesper “transaction” (web page returned). Hence, the TPS rates of the two different benchmarks shouldnot be directly compared. For both the Java and .NET applications, for instance, we observe higheroverall throughput rates in this test than the previous test; but that is due to the fact multiple businessIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 22
service operations are being called in the Web Application Test (in-process) for each page returned; vs.this test measuring just a single business service tier request per Web Service (remote) call.For IBM WebSphere 7, the Web Service façade is based on JAX-WS, and exposes the services overindustry standard SOAP/WSDL. IBM HTTP Server is used to direct requests to the Web Service tierrunning with the IBM WebSphere 7 application server. For the .NET StockTrader, the Web Service façadeis based on Windows Communication Foundation (WCF); which also exposes the services over the sameindustry standards for SOAP/WSDL. Internet Information Services 7.0 (IIS) is used to direct requests tothe WCF-exposed services. Each application uses the exact same service and data contracts; and hence asingle Web Service client can seamlessly access either tier with no changes required.In this test, the .NET Capacity Planner Web Service test tool (included with the .NET StockTraderdownload, including source code) is used to drive load against the service tiers. 10 quad-core agents areconfigured to drive as much load as required to achieve peak throughput for the service tier beingtested (without over saturating the servers). The Web Service responses (in the form of SOAPmessages) are returned to the clients. The script flow is defined as the Transaction-Light benchmarkwithin the .NET Capacity Planner, which tests the range of service operations, with less emphasis placedon buys than on other service operations (to reduce database load; which helps prevent DB2 or SQLServer disk I/O from becoming an external bottleneck).The following conclusions can be drawn for this benchmark workload:  .NET on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by 111%, yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 419% more (in absolute dollars) than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  IBM WebSphere 7 on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by 37%, yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 198% more (in absolute dollars) than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  Overall .NET on Windows Server 2008 shows by far the best price performance metric. IBM WebSphere 7 on IBM Power 570 has a price performance metric over 10 times higher than Microsoft .NET on Windows Server 2008. This means that for the performance actually delivered, IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server is actually over 10 times as expensive (in dollars per TPS) than running the same workload on Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008 deployed to the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 23
WSTest BenchmarkFigure 7: Benchmark TPS rates for the WSTest benchmark, including EchoList, EchoStruct and GetOrder service operations.This benchmark, which involves no business logic or database access, isolates the performance of the Web Service stackwithin the application server (XML serialization, http network access, etc). The .NET Capacity Planner Web Service test tool isused to drive Web Service requests (SOAP requests) to the server, with the web service responses returned to the virtualusers.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 24
Figure 8: Price performance ratios for the WSTest benchmark. See appendix for pricing calculations/detail, which includesthe hardware and software costs of the middle tier application server as tested.WSTest Benchmark DiscussionThis test is a Web Service workload, with no backing business logic or database access defined withinthe middle tier Web Service operations (as opposed to the previous test, which has both). Thisbenchmark is based on the WSTest workload, a Web Service benchmark originally designed by SunMicrosystems and augmented by Microsoft. The service tier consists of several different operations(EchoList, EchoStruct and GetOrder). With no business logic, these operations isolate just theperformance of the Web Service software within a given platform, including network access, and XMLserialization/deserialization of SOAP messages and objects. In this test, across all platforms, we noticethat TPS rates produced for each platform are roughly equivalent to those produced in the previousTrade middle-tier Web service test. Readers might ask why, if there are no business logic operations ordatabase queries in the WSTest benchmark, are roughly equivalent TPS rates achieved in this test whencompared to the previous test?The answer is that the Web Service message payload in this test, on average, is larger than in theprevious Trade middle tier Web Service test. Hence, in this test while less work is being performed byIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 25
business logic and database access (there is none); more work is being done on XML serialization/de-serialization due to the larger message size. Hence, readers should not directly compare results of thistest to the previous Trade middle tier Web Service test. While both tests involve remote Web Serviceoperations, they are independent tests with different workload characteristics. However, it should benoted the WSTest benchmark in this test used a default message size of 20 (20 repeating objects in allreturned message payloads); and readers are free to use the .NET Capacity Planner tool to test differentmessage sizes if they desire. They will then observe all platforms (.NET, WebSphere) producing higherTPS rates with smaller message sizes, and proportionally lower TPS rates with larger message sizes, dueto the relative increase or decrease in the message size and hence XML serialization costs.For IBM WebSphere 7 implementation of WSTest, the Web Services are based on JAX-WS, and exposedover industry standard SOAP/WSDL. IBM HTTP Server is used to direct requests to the Web Service tierrunning with the IBM WebSphere 7 application server. For the .NET implementation of WSTest, the WebServices are based on Windows Communication Foundation (WCF); which also exposes the services overthe same industry standards for SOAP/WSDL. Internet Information Services 7.0 (IIS) is used to directrequests to the WCF-exposed services. Each application uses the exact same service and data contracts;and hence a single Web Service client can seamlessly access either tier with no changes required.In this test, the .NET Capacity Planner Web Service test tool (included with the .NET StockTraderdownload, including source code) is used to drive load against the service tiers. 10 quad-core agents areconfigured to drive as much load as required to achieve peak throughput for the service tier beingtested (without over saturating the servers). The Web Service responses (in the form of SOAPmessages) are returned to the clients. The script flow uses a message size of 20 (meaning 20 repeatingelements within the SOAP message in each test).The following conclusions can be drawn for this benchmark workload:  .NET on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by roughly 120% (depending on the specific WSTest operation compared), yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 419% more than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  IBM WebSphere 7 on Windows Server 2008 running on the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 outperforms IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server by 51%, yet the IBM Power 570 server costs 198% more than the HP BladeSystem running Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008.  Overall .NET on Windows Server 2008 shows by far the best price performance metric. IBM WebSphere 7 on IBM Power 570 has a price performance metric over 10 times higher than Microsoft .NET on Windows Server 2008. This means that for the performance actually delivered, IBM WebSphere 7 on the IBM Power 570 server is actually over 10 times as expensive (in dollars per TPS) than running the same workload on Microsoft .NET and Windows Server 2008 deployed to the Hewlett Packard BladeSystem.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 26
ConclusionThis paper presents an extensive array of benchmark comparisons between IBM WebSphere 7 and .NET4.0/Windows Server 2008 running three different application server workloads. The results show thatrunning IBM WebSphere 7 on an Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 with Windows Server 2008 offerssignificantly better throughput than running the equivalent workloads on an IBM Power 570 server withAIX---and at roughly 1/3rd the cost of the middle tier hardware and software. In addition, the tests showthat the best throughput and lowest cost overall is Microsoft .NET running on Windows Server 2008—offering up to 111% better performance than the IBM Power 570; and at roughly 1/5th the total cost ofthe middle tier hardware and software. With published source code for all benchmark workloadimplementations and a free test tool provided, we encourage customers to perform their owncomparative testing on the platform of their choosing; and also to use the .NET StockTrader applicationas a learning sample for various features of .NET 4.0, ASP.NET and WCF Microsoft enterprisedevelopment technologies.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 27
Appendix A: PricingThe following pricing was used as the base pricing and price performance metric calculations. Pricing isbased on published suggested retail pricing obtained directly from the vendor, or quotes obtained byauthorized resellers. Pricing does not include sales tax.Hardware and Operating System PricingIBM Power 570Item Quantity Price Extended Price9117-MMA IBM SYSTEM P 570 1 $6,932.60 $6,932.609117-MMA-0265 AIX PARTITION 1 NA NASPECIFY9117-MMA-0266 LINUX PARTITION 14 NA NASPECIFY9117-MMA-1845OPERATOR PANEL 1 $135.32 $135.329117-MMA-3646 73 GB 15K RPM 4 $448.12 $1,792.48SAS DISK DRIVE9117-MMA-3660 PROC. FABRIC 1 $1,360.00 $1,360.00CABLE,29117-MMA-4650 RACK INTEG.-NOT 1 NA NAFACTORY INTEG9117-MMA-5622 4.2GHZ POW6- 4 $5,202.00 $20,808.002CORE 12 DDR29117-MMA-5625 PROC. POWER 6 $1,020.00 $6,120.00REGULATOR9117-MMA-5626 SYSTEMCEC 2 $340.00 $680.00ENCLOSURE WITHBEZEL9117-MMA-5628 AC POWER 4 $1,021.36 $4,085.44SUPPLY, 1600 W9117-MMA-5629 MEDIA 1 $125.80 $125.80ENCLOSURE AND BACKPLA9117-MMA-5636 2X-1GB VIRTETH- 2 $271.32 $542.64INTEGR9117-MMA-5648 SERVICE 2 $680.00 $1,360.00INTERFACE CARD9117-MMA-5657 SERVICE 1 $1,360.00 $1,360.00INTERFACE CABLE9117-MMA-5663 PROC 2 $1,360.00 $2,720.00ENCLOSURE AND BACKPLAN9117-MMA-5666 I/O BACKPLANE 2 $3,060.00 $6,120.009117-MMA-5667 SYSTEM 2 $680.00 $1,360.00MIDPLANE9117-MMA-5668 SAS DISKBACKPLANE-26SLOT 2 $714.68 $1,429.369117-MMA-5672 1 PROC ACTIV FOR 8 $10,404.00 $83,232.00PROC FT9117-MMA-5680 ACTIV OF 1GB 32 $1,030.20 $32,966.40DDR2 POWER 6 MEM9117-MMA-5693 8 $1,032.24 $8,257.920/4GB(4X1GB),667MHZ,DDR2,POW69117-MMA-5699 SYSTEM SHIP 1 $13.60 $13.60GROUP9117-MMA-5736 PCI-X DDR 2.0 2 $528.36 $1,056.72IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 28
DUAL CHAN.U3209117-MMA-5767 2-PORT 4 $475.32 $1,901.2810/100/1000-TX EXP ADP9117-MMA-6671 PWR 4 $12.92 $51.68CORD(9FT),DRW.TO IBM PDU9117-MMA-7164 IBM/OEM RACK- 2 $150.96 $301.92MOUNT DRW R KIT9117-MMA-7870 POWER 2 $180.20 $360.40DISTRIBUTION BACKPLANE9117-MMA-7942 ADVANCED PWR 8 $890.80 $7,126.40VIRTUALIZATION9117-MMA-9300 LANGUAGE 1 NA NAGROUP SPCF-US ENG7212-103 STORAGE DEVICE 1 $867.65 $867.65ENCLOSURE7212-103-1103 DVD-RAM 2 DRIVE 2 $536.00 $1,072.007212-103-1215 RACK MOUNT KIT 1 $100.50 $100.507212-103-9006 PSERIES INSTALL 1 NA NA7212-103-9300 ENGLISH 1 NA NAPUBLICATIONS7212-103-9764 4.5 M VHDCI/HD68 2 NA NASCSI CABLE7212-103-9860 RACK POWER 1 NA NACORD, AC, SINGLE5692-A5L PSERIES SPO 1 NA NA5692-A5L-0999 5765-G34 VIRTUAL 1 NA NAI/O SERVER5692-A5L-0999 5765-G34 VIRTUAL 1 NA NAI/O SERVER5692-A5L-1101 BASIC N/C DVD 1 NA NAMEDIA FEATURE5692-A5L-2924 ENGLISH 1 NA NA5692-A5L-3435 OTHER MEDIA (AIX) 1 NA NADVD SYS W5692-A5L PSERIES SPO 1 NA NA5692-A5L-0967 5765-G03 AIX 5L 1 NA NAFOR POWER V55692-A5L-0968 5765-G03 1 NA NAEXPANSION PACK5692-A5L-0970 5765-G03 AIX 5L 1 NA NAUPDATE CD5692-A5L-0975 MICROCODE UPD 1 NA NADISC TOOL V1.15692-A5L-0999 5765-G34 VIRTUAL 1 NA NAI/O SERVER5692-A5L-1100 DVD MEDIA 1 $50.00 $50.00PROCESS CHARGE5692-A5L-2924 ENGLISH 1 NA NA5692-A5L-3435 OTHER MEDIA (AIX) 1 NA NADVD SYS W5765-G03 AIX 5L FOR POWER V5.3 1 NA NA5765-G03-0005 AIX 5L FOR POWER 8 $1,041.25 $8,330.00V5.3 F55765-G34 VIOS 1.5 1 NA NA5765-G34-0002 VIRTUAL I/O SERV 8 NA NAF5 W/HW5771-SWM 1 YEAR SWMA PID 1 NA NAIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 29
NUMBER5771-SWM-0496 SWMA FOR AIX 1 8 $616.25 $4,930.00F5 SWMA 1Y RGST5771-SWM-0498 SWMA FOR AIX 1 8 $155.55 $1,244.40F5 SWMA 1Y7X245771-VIO VIRTUAL I/O SERVER 1 NA NASWMA 1YR5771-VIO-0617 GRP F5 BASIC OTC 8 $93.50 $748.005771-VIO-0618 VIRTUAL I/O SERV 8 $24.65 $197.20F5 SWMA1Y7247042-CR4 IBM 7042-CR4 1 $3,192.00 $3,192.007042-CR4-0962 HMC LMC V7 1 NA NA7042-CR4-4650 RACK INDICATOR- 10 NA NANOT FACT INTEGR7042-CR4-4767 HMC CR4 REDUN 1 $184.80 $184.80POW SUPPLY 6707042-CR4-6458 POW CBL, DRAW 2 $15.12 $30.2414-FT, 250V/10A7042-CR4-7802 ETH CBL,15M,HMC 1 $26.88 $26.88CSL TO SYSUNIT7042-CR4-9069 HMC/SRV ORDER 1 NA NALINKAGE IND7042-CR4-9300 LANG GROUP 1 NA NASPECIFY - US ENG7316-TF3 FLAT PANEL CONSOLE 1 $2,160.00 $2,160.00KIT7316-TF3-4650 NO FACTORY 1 NA NAINTEGRATION IND7316-TF3-8880 USB TRAVEL 1 $108.00 $108.00KEYB.W/CBL,US ENG7316-TF3-9300 LANG GROUP 1 NA NASPEC-US ENGLISH7316-TF3-9911 POWER CORD (4M) 1 NA NA– ALL5771-RS1 MCRSA FOR HMC 1 1 NA NAYEAR5771-RS1-0612 MCRSA FOR HMC 1 $212.50 $212.501Y PRC MCRS 1Y5771-RS1-0614 MCRSA FOR HMC 1 $73.95 $73.95PRC MCRS 1Y 7X245771-RS1-7000 Agreement for 1 NA NAMCRSATotal $215,728.08IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 30
Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000Hardware PricingHP Hardware pricing obtained from retail pricing via HP Direct, online at http://www.hp.com.Windows Server 2008 pricing obtained based on Microsoft Suggested Retail Pricing athttp://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/pricing.aspx.Item Quantity Price Extended PriceConfigurable- HP 1 $13,821.00 $13,821.00BladeSystem c-Classc7000 Enclosure 3-inchLCD - Three PhaseDetails of included components with BladeSystem C7000 EnclosureHP BladeSystem c-Class c7000 EnclosureHP 3 Phase Power ModuleHP BLc7000 Management Module4 HP BladeSystem c7000 Fans8 ICE-BL 30 Day Evaluation Licenses - Insight Control Environment for BladeSystemHP c-Class Insight Control Environment for BladeSystem 8 License with 1 year of 24x7 Support2 GbE2c Ethernet Blade Switches for HP c-Class BladeSystemHP Redundant Onboard Administrator Option6 HP 2450W High Efficiency Power Supplies6 HP Active Cool Fan Option KitsWarranty - 3 years - parts, labor, onsite - next business dayHP Care Pack 3-year, 4- 1 $752.00 $752.00Hour, 13x5 c7000Enclosure HardwareSupportConfigurable- HP 4 $5,403.00 21,612.00ProLiant BL460c G5Server BladeDetails of included components with each HP BL460c BladeHP ProLiant BL460c G5 Server BladeQuad-Core Intel® Xeon® E5450 (3.00GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 80W) ProcessorHP 32GB Fully Buffered DIMM PC2-5300 8X4GB DR LP MemoryEmbedded Smart Array E200i SAS Array Controller (without cache)HP 64MB cache upgrade for E200iHP 72GB Hot Plug 2.5 SAS 10,000 rpm Hard DriveHP 72GB Hot Plug 2.5 SAS 10,000 rpm Hard DriveRAID 0 drive set (requires minimum 1 hard drive)2 Embedded NC373i Multifunction Gigabit Network AdaptersHP iLO Advanced Blade 1 Server License with 1yr 24x7 Technical Support and UpdatesIntegrated Lights-Out 2 (iLO2) Standard Blade Edition (integrated on motherboard)3-Year Limited Warranty IncludedHP Care Pack 3-year, 4- 4 $296.00 $1,184.00hour, 13x5 BL4xxcIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 31
Server HardwareSupport; electronic:Subtotal Hardware $37,369.00Windows Server 2008 4 1,199.00 $4796.00Standard (64-bit)Windows Server 2008, 4 $1,999.00 7,996.00External ConnectorLicenseSubtotal Operating 12,792.00System SoftwareTotal (HP $50,161.00BladeSystemhardware andWindows Server 2008OS)Pricing for the Application Server Used in the TestsPricing includes middle tier software licensing costs for the primary application server used in theremote tests. Database software costs and middle tier/database hardware costs were not included,since these were not part of the system under test (SUT). We priced IBM WebSphere 7 ApplicationServer Edition for the application server, running on both Power6 and Intel XEON quad-core CPUs. Notethe WebSphere 7 Application Server Software costs 140% more per core to deploy to IBM Power6 thanto Intel/AMD platforms running Windows Server 2008 (50 Processor Value Units per core for Intel/AMDvs. 120 Processor Value Units per core for Power6/IBM Power 570). Note that for the .NET4.0/Microsoft Windows Server 2008 configuration, no separate application server is necessary: .NET isintegrated into Windows Server and new versions are made available as free downloads on MSDN.There is also no redistribution license fee to redistribute the full .NET Framework runtime.IBM WebSphere 7/IBM Power 570Pricing Obtained from IBM Passport Advantage Published Pricing at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/lotus/passportadvantage/pvu_licensing_for_customers.html.IBM WebSphere Application Server Processor Value Unit (PVU) License + SW Subscription & Support 12Months (D55W8LL)………………………………………..9601 @ $46.25……………………….….……………….…...$44,400.00Total WebSphere Application Server License Costs…………………………………………………….…...$44,400.00IBM WebSphere 7/ Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000Pricing Obtained from IBM Passport Advantage Published Pricing at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/lotus/passportadvantage/pvu_licensing_for_customers.html.1 120 PVUs per Power6 core; 8 Power6 cores total on system as tested.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 32
IBM WebSphere Application Server Processor Value Unit (PVU) License + SW Subscription & Support 12Months (D55W8LL)………………………………………..8002 @ $46.25………………………………………….……..$37,000.00Total WebSphere Application Server License Costs………………………………………………………..…...$37,000.00Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for IBM WebSphere7/AIX on IBM Power 570 as tested$260,128.08Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for IBM WebSphere7/Windows Server 2008 on Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 as tested$87,161.00Total Hardware, Operating System and Application Server Costs for Microsoft.NET/Windows Server 2008 on Hewlett Packard BladeSystem C7000 as tested$50,161.002 50 PVUs per Intel XEON core; 16 Intel Xeon cores total on system as tested.IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 33
Appendix B: Tuning ParametersWebSphere Tuning – IBM Power 570/AIXServlet Caching turned on in Web ContainerSession State set to 5 minute expiration (in-process session state)Access Log Turned OffPerformance Monitor Infrastructure Turned OffApp Profile Service OffDiagnostic Trace Turned OffSystem Out OffJVM Configured not to write System.Out printline messagesHTTP Channel maximum persistent requests = -1Minimum Web Container threads = 50Maximum Web Container threads = 50Minimum ORB threads = 24Maximum ORB threads = 24Minimum Default threads = 20Maximum Default threads = 20Minimum JDBC Connections in Pool = 51Maximum JDBC Connections in Pool = 51Java Heap Size: 2000 min/2100 MB maxIBM HTTP Server Tuning AIXAccess Log OffMax KeepAlive Requests unlimitedThreadLimit 500ServerLimit 22IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 34
StartServers 22MaxClients 11000MinSpareThreads 25MaxSpareThreads 75Threads/Child 500MaxRequests/Child 0 (unlimited)WebSphere Tuning – Windows Server 2008 R2Servlet Caching turned on in Web ContainerSession State set to 5 minute expiration (in-process session state)Access Log Turned OffPerformance Monitor Infrastructure Turned OffApp Profile Service OffDiagnostic Trace Turned OffSystem Out OffJVM Configured not to write System.Out printline messagesHTTP Channel maximum persistent requests = -1Minimum Web Container threads = 50Maximum Web Container threads = 50Minimum ORB threads = 24Maximum ORB threads = 24Minimum Default threads = 20Maximum Default threads = 20Minimum JDBC Connections in Pool = 51Maximum JDBC Connections in Pool = 51Java Heap Size: 2000 min/2100 MB maxIBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 35
IBM HTTP Server Tuning Windows Server 2008 R2Access Log OffMax KeepAlive Requests unlimitedDefault Threads 3200Threads/Child 3200.NET Tuning.NET Worker ProcessRapid Fail Protection offPinging offRecycle Worker Process offASP.NETForms Authentication with protection level=”All”Forms Authentication Timeout=5 minutesIIS 7.0 Virtual DirectoryAuthentication Basic OnlyAccess Logging OffService Behavior for Trade Business Services:<behavior name="TradeServiceBehaviors"><serviceDebug httpHelpPageEnabled="true" includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true"/><serviceMetadata httpGetEnabled="true" httpGetUrl=""/><serviceThrottling maxConcurrentInstances="400" maxConcurrentCalls="400"/></behavior>.NET StockTraderMax DB Connections = 60Min DB Connections = 60DB2Logging files expanded to 15 GBLogging Set to One Drive Array (array a)Database file on Second Drive Array (array b)Max Application Connections = 400SQL/ServerLogging files expanded to 15 GBLogging Set to One Drive Array (array a)Database file on Second Drive Array (array b)IBM WebSphere 7/Power6 vs. Microsoft .NET 4.0/HP BladeSystem Benchmark Report Page 36


text:
Description: New. 0441013309 New. No major marks or damage. Light storage...
New. 0441013309 New. No major marks or damage. Light storage wear. 100% satisfaction guaranteed. Great customer service and a no problem, EZ return policy. Real people, real service, since 1981.
Description: New. 0441013309 NEW! ! ! Publisher overstock.
New. 0441013309 NEW! ! ! Publisher overstock.
Description: New. 0441013309. New. Unmarked.; 1.1 x 7.9 x 5.1 Inches; 375...
New. 0441013309. New. Unmarked.; 1.1 x 7.9 x 5.1 Inches; 375 pages.
Description: New. 0441013309 Friendly Return Policy. A+++ Customer Service!
New. 0441013309 Friendly Return Policy. A+++ Customer Service!
Description: New. 0441013309 XCITING PRICES JUST FOR YOU. Ships within 24...
New. 0441013309 XCITING PRICES JUST FOR YOU. Ships within 24 hours. Best customer service. 100% money back return policy.
Description: New. 0441013309! ! KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! ! ENJOY OUR BEST PRICES!...
New. 0441013309! ! KNOWLEDGE IS POWER! ! ENJOY OUR BEST PRICES! ! ! Ships Fast. All standard orders delivered within 5 to 12 business days.
9781841492988
Description: New. 0441013309 New item in stock, may show minimal wear from...
New. 0441013309 New item in stock, may show minimal wear from storage. May have remainder mark. I ship daily and provide tracking! 100% Money Back Guarantee!
I like this author. I think his ...
The title is clever and the plot is built around it ...

type: global

value: This website is is an online store that sells new books, used books, out-of-print books, rare books, and other media through an online network of independent booksellers.


text:
FOOTBALL; Irish Build Victory From the Ground Up - The New York Times
Archives|FOOTBALL; Irish Build Victory From the Ground Up
https://nyti.ms/29bgd40
FOOTBALL; Irish Build Victory From the Ground Up
By MALCOLM MORAN OCT. 25, 1992
October 25, 1992, Page 008001 The New York Times Archives
At the end of an afternoon of contrasting football doctrines, Brigham Young's precise, creative passing tradition could not match Notre Dame's size and strength. Not in Notre Dame's convincing second half, when the Irish overpowered the Cougars to turn a potentially dangerous game into a 42-16 victory.
In a meeting of the nation's two leading offenses, Notre Dame (5-1-1) rushed for 291 of its 455 yards. The Irish were outgained, 220 yards to 132, in the first half. But in the third and fourth quarters, the Irish gained 323 yards -- 233 on the ground -- to Brigham Young's 132. Notre Dame controlled the ball for 20 minutes 21 seconds in the second half and took control of what had been a 5-point game with three rushing touchdowns within a span of 7:42.
"It wasn't turn on the switch and let's go," said fullback Jerome Bettis, who gained 113 yards despite twisting his left ankle, and who ran for touchdowns of 18 and 6 yards in the fourth quarter. "It was sputter-sputter-sputter. When we can pound-pound-pound, that would be a good experience."
Reggie Brooks, who suffered a hip injury in a tackling drill last Monday, gained 112 yards for the Irish while running conservatively to protect his injury. "I was always trying to keep it under control," he said. "I couldn't accelerate."
Jeff Burris, who had two interceptions, also scored, on a 1-yard rush.
Brigham Young's sophomore quarterback, Ryan Hancock, completed 28 of 56 passes for 339 yards. But with the Cougars (4-4) limited to 13 yards in 16 rushes -- minus-24 yards in the first half -- the Irish took advantage of Hancock's two fumbles and three interceptions, plus several missed opportunities.
"I wouldn't want to be them today," said Rick Mirer, the Irish quarterback, who completed 12 of 17 passes for 151 yards and two touchdowns. "They had success throwing the ball, but when it's third-and-1, what do you do?"
In the first half, that was the question that prevented the Cougars from taking early control of the game. Hancock's first fumble, which turned into a touchdown by Irish linebacker Demetrius DuBose, put the Cougars behind just 4:23 into the game.
As a failed handoff popped loose and rested on the end-zone grass, DuBose remembered an early moment in the loss to Stanford three weeks ago, when a loose ball in the end zone became a safety instead of a Notre Dame touchdown. "That was in the forefront of my mind," he said.
This time, DuBose got to the ball for a touchdown. Meanwhile, three Brigham Young possessions in the first half, reaching the Notre Dame 2, 4 and 11-yard lines, ended with field goals by David Lauder rather than touchdowns that would have forced the Irish to play from behind. "We definitely feel like we should have punched the ball in a few more times," Hancock said. Nothing but Frustration
The misses for the Cougars were many. A third-down pass by Hancock pass from the 2-yard line, intended for tight end Byron Rex at the goal line, was overthrown.
A third-down toss for split end Tyler Anderson, from the Irish 4, became an incompletion when strong safety John Covington arrived with the pass.
A third-down pass from the Notre Dame 11 fell incomplete when Hancock threw behind Rex, who could do nothing more than reach back and momentarily place one hand on the ball.
That series of third-down failures became an even more significant factor at the start of the third quarter, with Notre Dame head, 14-9. The Irish, having established a more consistent rushing game in a drive from their 20 to the Cougar 46, suddenly looked toward Raghib Ismail's old page in their playbook.
This time it was senior flanker Ray Griggs on the end of the middle screen, with senior guard Todd Norman leading the charge out front. Griggs took Mirer's pass and ran for a 54-yard touchdown that gave the Irish a 21-9 lead.
Norman had broken his right thumb in the second quarter, but returned in the second half after being told that no further damage could be done. It was just a matter of withstanding the pain.
"I suppose it would be equivalent to dropping a 50-pound brick on your skull," Norman said and smiled. He was exaggerating just a little.
B.Y.U. responded with a 78-yard touchdown drive that was finished off with Hancock's 5-yard pass to sophomore wide receiver Tim Nowatzke with 7:43 to go in the third quarter. The Cougars, within 5 points again at 21-16, then stopped the Irish on fourth down from the B.Y.U. 5 when Bettis was held for no gain.
But on the Cougars' next possession, three of Hancock's passes fell incomplete, the third when junior flanker Eric Drage appeared to be bumped in the air by Burris, who was playing safety. Brigham Young was forced to punt and the Irish drove downfield, with Bettis going 18 yards for a touchdown with 12:46 to play. That made it 28-16, and Notre Dame was on its way.
A version of this article appears in print on October 25, 1992, on Page 8008001 of the National edition with the headline: FOOTBALL; Irish Build Victory From the Ground Up. Order Reprints| Today's Paper|Subscribe

value: This website is an American daily newspaper based in New York City with a worldwide readership. Founded in 1851, the Times has since won 132 Pulitzer Prizes, the most of any newspaper, and has long been regarded within the industry as a national "newspaper of record".


text:
HANDMADE WITH LOVE by amycakesjewelry on Etsy
amycakesjewelry
Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan 3 Sales On Etsy since 2019
Charter Township of Clinton, Michigan | 3 Sales
Resin Charms 7
Boss Pink Purse Charm
Pac-Man Statement Ring
Resin Heart Charm with mini Gem Charms - for Purses, Backpacks, Planners and More!
Baby Blue Cat Necklace & Earring Set
Babygirl Resin Charm for Purses, Backpacks, Planners and More
Custom Charms for Purse, Backpack or Notebook!
Cherry Charm on Thick Ball Chain Necklace
Red Phlox Flower Statement Necklace
Yellow Flower Necklace & Bangle Set
Red and Gold Charm Bracelet with Pansy Gems
Mermaid Charm for Purses or Backpacks
Sky Blue Heart Charm
Shooting Star Purse Charm
Peach Flower Dangle Earrings
Purple Dangle Tear Drop Earrings
Triple Gem Choker
Pink Drip Cuff Bangle
Coral Heart on Sky Blue Necklace
Purple Tiger Lily Heart
Neon Green Dino Necklace
Announcement Gift With Every Purchase!
About amycakesjewelry
Handmade pendents & charms fused with antique chains & necklaces. Made with epoxy resin, dried flowers & alcohol ink. Artist is based in Michigan, just outside of Detroit.
Read the privacy policy for amycakesjewelry

value: This website is an American e-commerce company focused on handmade or vintage items and craft supplies.


text:
Translations English (6) German (1) Hungarian (1) License Creative Commons Attribution License (19) OSI-Approved Open Source (4) GNU General Public License version 3.0 (3) MIT License (2) Apache Software License (1) BSD License (1) GNU General Public License version 2.0 (1) GNU Library or Lesser General Public License version 3.0 (1) University of Illinois/NCSA Open Source License (1) Programming Language Java (4) PHP (3) Python (3) C (2) C++ (2) JavaScript (2) C# (1) Lazarus (1) Lua (1) Objective C (1) REALbasic (1) Unix Shell (1) Visual Basic (1) XBasic (1) Status 5 - Production/Stable (2) 4 - Beta (1) OS Windows (15) Linux (12) Grouping and Descriptive Categories (10) 64-bit MS Windows (5) All 32-bit MS Windows (3) All BSD Platforms (3) All POSIX (3) 32-bit MS Windows (2) OS Independent (2) OS Portable (1) Project is an Operating System Distribution (1) Mac (10) Modern (7) Linux (5) Windows 7 (4) WinXP (2) OS X (1) Vista (1) Windows 8 (1) Android (5) Embedded Operating Systems (4) Android (2) Apple iPhone (2) Blackberry RIM OS (1) SymbianOS (1) WinCE (1) Windows Mobile (1) BSD (3) Freshness Recently updated (8) Top Apps
semantic sentence similar..

value: This website is a web service that offers software consumers a centralized online location to control and manage open-source software projects and research business software. It provides source code repository hosting, bug tracking, mirroring of downloads for load balancing, a wiki for documentation, developer and user mailing lists, user-support forums, user-written reviews and ratings, a news bulletin, micro-blog for publishing project updates, and other features.


text:
15"x6" White Spoke Wagon Trailer Camper Wheel Rim 6x5.5 lug Triangle hole | eBay
15" x 6" White Modular Trailer Wheel (6-5.5" Bolt Circle)
Trailer Rim Wheel 15" x 6" 15x6 5 Lug Hole Bolt Wheel Black Spoke Design
15"x6" White Spoke Wagon Trailer Camper Wheel Rim 6x5.5 lug Triangle hole
Trailer Rim Wheel 15" 15X6 5 Lug Hole Bolt Steel Highway Wheel White Spoke
15x6 6/5.5 White Spoke Trailer Wheel / Rim 15 Inch / 6 Lug C/O RV
Details about 15"x6" White Spoke Wagon Trailer Camper Wheel Rim 6x5.5 lug Triangle hole
randpcarriages (138137 )
“6 lug 5.5" circle Wagon Wheel White rim. This wheel has a "neutral" offset (3" back space). If you are still "not sure" Ask us before buying! Stud size: 1/2” - 20 60 . The wheel is 6" wide between the beads.” ... Read more
350261858316
Last updated on Oct 23, 2017 08:31:25 PDT View all revisions
17-144-12
Great Made In USA item & Fast Shipment Thanks !!!!
RV, Trailer & Camper Tires & Wheels for 15,

value: This website is an American multinational e-commerce corporation based in San Jose, California, that facilitates consumer-to-consumer and business-to-consumer sales through its website.


text:
Yachtman's choice - Review of Melini's, Jolly Harbour, Antigua and Barbuda - TripAdvisor
Yachtman's choice - Melini's
“Yachtman's choice”
TranscendenceKinsale
Yachtman's choice
When in the Marina in Jolly Harbour I came to the restaurant most mornings for coffee and to use the excellent WiFi.
Getting to be a bit of a regular the strength of the coffee I liked was known by the staff and was made just right for me, a very nice bit of service.
Had dinner there several nights and was always lovely.
I felt well treated and appreciated and recommend Melini's highly.
Ask TranscendenceKinsale about Melini's
Thank TranscendenceKinsale
368 - 372 of 635 reviews
I found Melini's three weeks ago and went to dine 12 times since. The food is deliciously tasty. Starters are amazing. Mains are the best. Very good service. Patient staff that recognize you after the first visit. Pat's service is outstanding. Blue bottle wine is a little expensive. We would have drank much more if it was EC$20 cheaper.
Ask DrArtusa about Melini's
Good Italian, nice location, friendly staff
We went to Melini's several times in our 2 week break. We found the food consistently excellent (as apparently did the little black cat who enjoys sitting and staring at you with big eyes). We thought the prices were reasonable given location and portion sizes. Also found the menu choice to be much more varied and interesting than Mayday next door.
We definitely recommend the breaded aubergine in tomato sauce starter. Yummy.
Ask TheGrumbles about Melini's
Italian in Jolly Harbour
I thought the food was great, but a bit on the pricey side. The outdoor setting and ambience is excellent, and it is located in a convenient area within Jolly Harbour.
Ask Stephen Y about Melini's
Had a great dinner at 8pm. Stayed down the road so this was a perfect location to grab a meal right in the marina. Nice waitstaff. Attentive, friendly. Food is excellent. Awesome and different types of pizzas to choose from. Decent mark up on the bottles of wine. Enjoyed a pizza to start, two entrees and a bottle of rose for around $150.00 (two people).
Ask RhodyRoman about Melini's

value: This website is an American online travel company that operates a website and mobile app with user-generated content and a comparison shopping website.


text:
Comedian : Kerry Coddett Tickets, Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 8:00 PM | Eventbrite
Openers Jen Stephenson & Rachel Blithe.
Comedian : Kerry Coddett at Auburn Public Theater - Main Stage
Comedy : Tour About Nothing

value: This website is an American event management and ticketing website. The service allows users to browse, create, and promote local events.


text:
Mercedes G63 | eBay Please enable JavaScript Our new search experience requires JavaScript to be enabled. Please enable JavaScript on your browser, then try again.
Skip to main contenteBayShop by categoryEnter your search keywordAll CategoriesAntiquesArtBabyBooksBusiness & IndustrialCameras & PhotoCell Phones & AccessoriesClothing, Shoes & AccessoriesCoins & Paper MoneyCollectiblesComputers/Tablets & NetworkingConsumer ElectronicsCraftsDolls & BearsDVDs & MovieseBay MotorsEntertainment MemorabiliaGift Cards & CouponsHealth & BeautyHome & GardenJewelry & WatchesMusicMusical Instruments & GearPet SuppliesPottery & GlassReal EstateSpecialty ServicesSporting GoodsSports Mem, Cards & Fan ShopStampsTickets & ExperiencesToys & HobbiesTravelVideo Games & ConsolesEverything ElseAdvanced or register':' style="margin-right:3px">Hi -User-!'.replace(/-User-/,escape(a)))+"")}catch(b){document.write("")}})();Hi (Sign in to bid or buy)Daily DealsGift CardsSellHelp & ContactMy eBayExpand My eBaySummaryBids/OffersWatch listWish listAll listsPurchase historySellingMy CollectionsFollowed searchesMessagesNotification Related: mercedes g55 range rover mercedes gl63 mercedes g500 mercedes g65 mercedes g550 mercedes g class mercedes g wagon mercedes s63 porsche panamera mercedes ml63
Yay! You're now following Mercedes G63 in your eBay Feed.You will receive email alerts for new listings. Dont send me e-mail alerts.
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 AMG®
$136,960.00
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 AMG Prior Design Widebody
Like Studio Edition ! SEMA ! fiveninedesign ! BESPOKE
$159,159.59
$119,259.00
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 Wagon
MERCEDES BENZ G55 G63
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G-Wagen G63 AMG 4MATIC "Designo"!
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class DESIGNO LEATHER INTERIOR
G63 AMG 24 INCH WHEELS AND TIRES, BITURBO AWD
Navigation Backup Camera Heated and Cooled Seats WOW
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 AMG DESIGNO MATTE PAINT RED CROSS STITCHED INT
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 AMG AWD 4MATIC 4dr SUV
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class 2014 Mercedes-Benz G63 AMG Certified
$124,882.00
$103,993.00
$117,894.00
Mercedes-Benz: G-Class G63 AMG G Wagon
$102,949.00
Under $127,900.00 $127,900.00 - $140,000.00 Over $140,000.00$ Enter minimum price to $ Enter maximum price Format


text:
Five Challenges New Target CEO Can’t Address Soon Enough - Bloomberg
Bloomberg Anywhere Remote LoginDownload SoftwareService Center MENU Homepage Markets Stocks Currencies Commodities Rates + Bonds Economics Magazine Benchmark Watchlist Economic Calendar Tech U.S. Global Startups Cybersecurity Digital Media Bloomberg Technology TV Hello World Studio 1.0 Pursuits Cars & Bikes Style & Grooming Spend Watches & Gadgets Food & Drinks Travel Real Estate Art & Design Politics Global Risk Briefing How We’ll Know if Trump Is Making America Great Again Tracking Trump’s Web of Conflicts The Inauguration of Donald J. Trump On the March in Trump’s Capital Opinion View Gadfly Businessweek Subscribe Cover Stories Opening Remarks Etc Features 85th Anniversary Issue Behind The Cover More Science + Energy Graphics Billionaires Game Plan Small Business Personal Finance Live TV Inspire GO The David Rubenstein Show Sponsored Content Bloomberg About The Company Sign In Sign In Subscribe Five Challenges New Target CEO Can’t Address Soon Enough
July 31, 2014, 10:43 AM EDT
Brian Cornell, Target Corp.’s new chief executive officer, just stepped into a hot retail mess.
CFO John Mulligan alluded to the challenges when he dropped by Bloomberg News a few weeks ago and acknowledged something industry watchers have long known: “Tarjay,” inventor of cheap chic, is scared to take chances.
“We got a little bit risk-averse,” said Mulligan, who was interim CEO until today, when Target said it had hired Cornell, a PepsiCo Inc. executive, as its first outside chief.
Of all the challenges facing Cornell, firing up the culture may be the most important. Without making it OK to take risks, Target won’t be able to fight off the competition coming at it from every corner, transcend the company’s outdated big-box roots and win back shoppers who’ve come to see the chain as little more than Wal-Mart with red shopping carts.
Cornell, who has also worked at Sam’s Club and Michaels Stores Inc. has the retail chops to get Target growing again. But it won’t be easy.
Here, in no particular order, are his five biggest challenges:
ME-TOO GEAR Retailers that don’t differentiate themselves with exclusive stuff on their shelves are doomed to irrelevance. Target once stood out for trendy clothes and home goods -- Michael Graves teapots, Missoni dresses -- and won the hearts of snooty urbanites who wouldn’t be caught dead at Wal-Mart. Then everyone else stole the idea and cheap chic even started showing up at Kmart. Have you looked at a Target circular lately? There’s a big focus on groceries, which you can get all over the place these days, even at the corner drug store. Where’s the cool gear you can’t find anywhere else?
SMALL STORES News flash: The big box is dead -- or at least headed for the retirement home. Small stores are where it’s at. The company’s initial answer was City Target, a 100,000-square-foot format about three-quarters the size of a regular location that could fit in more urban areas. The idea is to lure shoppers with everyday needs in the hopes they visit more often and buy the cool stuff one aisle over from the milk and eggs. The first City Target opened in 2012 and two years later there are only eight. Most retail analysts agree that’s not fast enough.
BROKEN CANADA It took years for Target to finally open a foreign outpost and it chose America’s northern neighbor, where shopping habits are supposedly similar. Even better, Canadians already knew about Target because they routinely crossed the border to shop there. Imagine their surprise when they discovered that the same merchandise cost more at the new Canadian Target stores. Cue: huge losses.
TECH WOES Target has a technology challenge -- and we’re not talking about its inability to thwart a massive data breach that exposed millions of customers’ credit and debit cards to hackers last year. Like many retailers, Target needs to get its brick-and-mortar and online operations more in sync. Only last Christmas did the chain begin allowing shoppers to pick up online orders at a local store. Sears, which is even more challenged than Target, has offered that service for years.
RED TAPE Back to that cautious culture CFO Mulligan talked about. Bureaucracy is rife at Target’s Minneapolis headquarters. In the few months when he was running the place, Mulligan claimed a few victories in his fight against red tape. He moved the entire leadership to the 26th floor to speed up decision making and get everyone on the same page. Cornell will have to pick up the baton.

value: This website is an international news agency headquartered in New York City and a division of Bloomberg L.P. Content produced by Bloomberg News is disseminated through Bloomberg Terminals, Bloomberg Television, Bloomberg Radio, Bloomberg Businessweek, Bloomberg Markets, Bloomberg.com, and Bloomberg's mobile platforms. Since 2015, John Micklethwait has served as editor-in-chief.