Comparison Analysis Sample Clauses

Comparison Analysis. Each time that Supplier makes a Change to the Systems or Services, Supplier will perform a comparison analysis at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail to verify the Change will not have an adverse impact on the costs, operations or environment of Clearwire or on the functionality, interoperability, performance, accuracy, speed, legality, responsiveness, quality or resource efficiency of the Services. In addition, at Clearwire’s request, Supplier will perform a comparison at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail, between the amount of chargeable resources required to perform a representative sample of the Services being performed for Clearwire immediately prior to the Change and immediately after the Change. Clearwire will not be required to pay for increased chargeable resources usage due to a Change except to the extent that such Change is requested or approved by Clearwire after notice from Supplier of such increased chargeable resources usage.

Comparison Analysis. The parties to this Agreement will undertake during the term of the Agreement, a wages comparison between the classifications expressed within this Agreement and similar or comparable classifications in other New South Wales public sector agencies.

Comparison Analysis. How can SDM help in DCN

Comparison Analysis. With the introduction above, the feature of different fibers are compared in Table 7, as well as their preference in different DCN position. However, we should notice that it is hard to say which technology would have overwhelming advantage than others when considering all these features and various requirements in different scenarios. Table 7 depicts the performance comparison in terms of defined figure of merits and preference of DCN position. First, it is clear that FMF/MMF and MCF/MEF could provide better spectrum efficiency than others with negligible performance degradation. But fibers supporting mode division would need more complex signal processing technologies (e.g., MIMO) which would increase the implementation difficulty and cost. On the other hand, multi-core and multi-element fiber are more suitable for interconnection between aggregate/core switches due to their higher spectrum efficiency, while SMF and FMF/MMF are more suitable for interconnection closing server side (server-to-server and server-to-ToR) considering the cost efficiency (e.g., interfacing cost). Of course, with the technology advancement and increasing communication requirements, the cost of MCF/MEF would go down and an optical switch may directly interface with MCF which would make the SDM based fibers more popular. Table 7 Performance Comparison of different fiber technologies SMF FMF/MMF MCF MEF FM-MCF Spectrum efficiency low medium high high high Fiber Loss standard Can be low as SMF Can be low as SMF Can be low as SMF Higher than SMF Intra-Mode Nonlinearity no low Standard or high standard high Inter-Mode Nonlinearity no low to medium low no medium Mode Coupling/ Crosstalk no low to high, can be optimized medium no high Cost low as low as 1×SMF medium N×SMF medium DSP complexity low medium to high low to medium low high Server-to-Server (Intra-Rack) high high low low low Server-to-ToR high high medium low low ToR-to-Aggregate Switch low low high medium medium Inter-cluster low low high high high Inter-DC low low high high medium Interfaces supported by switches and connectors used to adapt the switch interface to the specific fibers (e.g., multi-core fiber) are directly related with the DCN design and its performance (e.g., cost efficiency, port density of switches). In this section, the potential interface technologies utilized by Venture and ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ switch will be discussed.