tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447887.post444553162542932679..comments2008-02-28T18:25:05.757+11:00Craig Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06661435684035973875noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447887.post-26057281273973411562008-02-28T18:25:00.000+11:002008-02-28T18:25:00.000+11:00Hi Ken, <BR/>Thanks for the note. <BR/>The techies took performance monitor snapshots of each scenario as they went along. Alan will blogging some of these results in the coming days. <BR/>Things like CPU utilisation and memory use were definately different between the two (eg 2008 had much higher utilisation). I'll post specifics once Alan has blogged about them.<BR/>And yes, I agree, the numbers are hard to believe...<BR/>Cheers,<BR/>CraigCraig Baileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06661435684035973875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7447887.post-54088058649755686342008-02-28T16:57:00.000+11:002008-02-28T16:57:00.000+11:00Craig,<BR/><BR/>Have you worked out what is the bottleneck on the WS2003 setup? Was is CPU? Network? Memory? Disk I/O?<BR/><BR/>Something that was a bottleneck is obviously no longer a bottleneck, but it's unclear from your post what it is. <BR/><BR/>Without working this out, it's a bit hard to know if your results can be transferred to other situations (not to mention I find the numbers hard to believe)...Ken Schaeferhttp://adopenstatic.com/blognoreply@blogger.com