First time here? Check out the site's "greatest hits" or read a post from the archives. Feel free to leave a comment or ask a question, and consider subscribing to the latest posts via RSS or e-mail. Thanks for visiting!
Do you Tweet? Follow me on Twitter @shanselman or learn how to use Twitter!
« GlucoMON - Long Range Wireless delivery ... | Main | .NET To Go Mobility Road Show in PDX on ... »

There's a new Corillian/Microsoft Scalability Case Study. A few highlights (Emphasis mine):

  • Currently, more than 19 million end users—or about 25 percent of U.S. online banking customers—use Corillian technology when they use their institution's online services for transactions such as checking balances, paying bills, and transferring funds between accounts. (Not bad for a Microsoft-based platform, eh? .NET works.)
  • Voyager 3.1 was able to support 70,000 concurrent users across multiple lines of business.
  • Voyager 3.1 was able to support a sustained throughput rate of more than 1,268 transactions per second — about 4.5 million successful transactions per hour—and a sustained session creation rate of more than 208 new sessions per second.
  • Voyager 3.1 supported more than 129,000 concurrent sessions across the system at peak load. This includes both active sessions, in which a user is executing transactions, and inactive sessions.
  • Voyager 3.1 supported a ramp-up from 0 to 70,000 users in only 15 minutes—without any adverse impact on performance—demonstrating that Voyager can sustain a large burst of users accessing information in a short time period without overwhelming the system.
  • Voyager 3.1 surpassed its previous benchmark of 30,000 concurrent users by 133 percent, with only a 32-percent increase in overall hardware cost.

It's fun to work on big stuff at Corillian. The case study is at the Microsoft site here.

Tracked by:
"Year in Review" (philweber.net) [Trackback]


Monday, September 27, 2004 11:54:00 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
Very cool.

Is there a link to the actual report?
TomB
Monday, September 27, 2004 12:34:38 PM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
> sustained throughput rate of more than 1,268 transactions per second

Very insightful info! Scott, if I may ask: how many CPUs it takes to get this? what tx per sec per CPU?
Max S.
Wednesday, September 29, 2004 9:49:21 AM (Pacific Standard Time, UTC-08:00)
The report is linked in Greg Hughes post or if you don't want to go there you can find it here: http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/casestudy.asp?CaseStudyID=15811
Comments are closed.

Contact

Sponsors

Hosting By

Hot Topics

Tags

Calendar

<November 2009>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
25262728293031
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293012345

Archives

November, 2009 (5)
October, 2009 (19)
September, 2009 (11)
August, 2009 (12)
July, 2009 (21)
June, 2009 (26)
May, 2009 (16)
April, 2009 (13)
March, 2009 (17)
February, 2009 (17)
January, 2009 (18)
December, 2008 (32)
November, 2008 (17)
October, 2008 (22)
September, 2008 (16)
August, 2008 (14)
July, 2008 (25)
June, 2008 (19)
May, 2008 (17)
April, 2008 (17)
March, 2008 (26)
February, 2008 (21)
January, 2008 (28)
December, 2007 (19)
November, 2007 (17)
October, 2007 (31)
September, 2007 (39)
August, 2007 (37)
July, 2007 (43)
June, 2007 (37)
May, 2007 (32)
April, 2007 (38)
March, 2007 (29)
February, 2007 (46)
January, 2007 (31)
December, 2006 (27)
November, 2006 (31)
October, 2006 (32)
September, 2006 (39)
August, 2006 (34)
July, 2006 (40)
June, 2006 (18)
May, 2006 (31)
April, 2006 (34)
March, 2006 (30)
February, 2006 (38)
January, 2006 (44)
December, 2005 (19)
November, 2005 (34)
October, 2005 (24)
September, 2005 (37)
August, 2005 (20)
July, 2005 (24)
June, 2005 (33)
May, 2005 (16)
April, 2005 (22)
March, 2005 (34)
February, 2005 (15)
January, 2005 (37)
December, 2004 (28)
November, 2004 (30)
October, 2004 (34)
September, 2004 (22)
August, 2004 (34)
July, 2004 (18)
June, 2004 (64)
May, 2004 (49)
April, 2004 (21)
March, 2004 (29)
February, 2004 (29)
January, 2004 (36)
December, 2003 (25)
November, 2003 (24)
October, 2003 (59)
September, 2003 (42)
August, 2003 (24)
July, 2003 (44)
June, 2003 (29)
May, 2003 (21)
April, 2003 (30)
March, 2003 (27)
February, 2003 (47)
January, 2003 (50)
December, 2002 (31)
November, 2002 (38)
October, 2002 (44)
September, 2002 (15)
May, 2002 (2)
April, 2002 (4)

Google Ads