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. Each time that Service Provider makes a material change to the Materials, Equipment, Systems or Services, Service Provider shall perform a comparison analysis at a reasonable and mutually agreed level of detail to confirm the change shall not have an adverse impact on the costs, operations or environment of TxDOT or on the functionality, interoperability, performance, accuracy, speed, legality, responsiveness, quality or resource efficiency of the Services. In addition, at TxDOT's request, Service Provider shall 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 TxDOT immediately prior to the change and immediately after the change. TxDOT shall 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 TxDOT after notice from Service Provider of such increased chargeable resources usage.
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. 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. Technology Table 7 Performance Comparison of different fiber technologies SMF FMF/MMF MCF MEF FM-MCF Figure of Merits 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 Preference of DCN position 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 6 Interfaces/Connectors 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 Xxxxxxx switch will be discussed.
Comparison Analysis. How can SDM help in DCN So far, SDM theoretical and experimental research was based on total bandwidth, capacity and aggregate spectral efficiency, not actually considering the space domain. Needless to say, it is essential to have a reference point in order to analyse and identify which SDM technology suits one’s purpose better. In this section, two metrics are discussed to quantify SDM features. The first one aims to measure Spectral Efficiency (SE) per cross-sectional area of the fibers (Spectral-Spatial Efficiency) and the second focuses in evaluating components used for optical networks with regards to their footprint area and/or volume (Components Performance per Footprint Area/Volume – CPFA/CPV). With the definition described in section 2, we calculated the Spectral-Spatial Efficiency for 10 fiber structures, each of which is implementing SDM in various ways. These fibers were reviewed qualitatively in this section. Figure 20 illustrates the SSE of those SDM fiber technologies for three discrete SE values, 1, 4 and 8 b/s/Hz. This figure depicts the expected trend that fibers with more spatial channels and less cross-section area, use spectrum much more efficiently. Remarkable distinction is found between the SMF ribbon and the MC-FMF (5 and 5928 b/s/Hz/mm2), as shown in Figure 20. That is due to the large difference between the area of the cross-section of the fibre of the two technologies, although SMF-bundle outnumbers FM-MCF in Spatial Modes. In the cases of the fiber-bundle and MEF, coating diameters have been used, since the fibers and the elements respectively do not share the same cladding as in the rest instances, so taking their cladding diameter as a reference would be inaccurate. Adding coating diameters to the rest fibers would have made Figure 20 Spectral-Spatial Efficiency (b/s/Hz /mm2) evaluation of various SDM fibers. The columns on each fiber represent 1, 4, 8 b/s/Hz Spectral Efficiency per spatial channel respectively. Indication labels (middle column) show the value of SSE for 4 b/s/Hz SE. insignificant difference to the final result, so we decided not to. The outcome of the above evaluation using SSE, shows that there is enough room for future improvement in SDM networks. Especially in reducing cable complexity and conventional fiber mesh by having fewer SDM fibers still offering the same and higher spectral efficiency and capacity services. As a summary, the SDM technologies are quite mature to successfully cope with most of tho...
