#214144
December 2014
Commissioned by
Hewlett-Packard Company
HP 5400R zl2 Switch Series
Competitive Performance, Power Consumption and TCO Evaluation versus
Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today’s enterprise networks demand next-generation modular
switches that are powerful, resilient and flexible enough to be
deployed at the enterprise edge, as a small-medium business (SMB)
core solution or in branch-office deployments.
HP commissioned Tolly to evaluate the performance, power
consumption and total cost of ownership (TCO) of its modular HP
5400R zl2 Switch and compare that with the Cisco Systems Catalyst
4507R+E.
The HP 5400R zl2 Switch Series delivered better system
performance with 50% higher aggregate throughput than the
Cisco Systems Catalyst 4507R+E across all frame/packet sizes tested
in tests of L2 switching and L3 IPv4 and IPv6 routing. With respect
to cost, the HP solution not only has lower initial costs but provides
ongoing savings through more efficient use of power and costeffective support.
THE BOTTOM LINE
HP 5400R zl2 Switch Series:
1 Provides 27% lower TCO than the Cisco 4507R+E in a 5,000 port
network
2 Outperforms the Cisco 4507R+E with 1.9X greater packet per
second performance with L2 and IPv4 traffic and 3.2X pps with
IPv6 traffic
3 Offers 3X the density of the Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E for 10GbE
ports (including 10GBASE-T)
4 Delivers 48% lower average L2 latency than the Cisco 4507R+E
5 Consumes 20% less power and is 87% more efficient based on
TEER
6 Includes full L3 features with no software licensing, limited
lifetime warranty and 3 years 24x7 phone support
Three-Year Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) of a 5,000-Port Network Deployment
HP 5400R zl2 vs. Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
Cost (USD)
$2,000,000
$1,600,000
HP’s solution saves 27%
$1,200,000
$800,000
$400,000
$0
HP 5400R
Cisco 4507R+E
Note: Using fully-populated switches, each network contains 5,040 GbE ports. The HP solution provides 504 10GbE ports compared to 168 for Cisco.
Pricing includes hardware and 3-year support costs sourced from CDW in October 2014 as well as power costs. See Tables 1 & 4 for details.
Figure 1
Source: Tolly, October 2014
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Tolly.com
Page 1 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
Test Results
TCO for 5,000 Port Network
Elements of TCO
Network architects need to have a full
understanding of both the initial and
ongoing costs of deploying a LAN
infrastructure. As part of this evaluation,
Tolly engineers quantified the costs of
building a network providing 5,000 users
with Gigabit Ethernet (GbE) connectivity
and 10GbE uplinks. The cost elements
included: initial hardware costs, 3-year
support costs and power costs.
Network Details and Costs
For each vendor, a deployment of 5,000
GbE ports would require 21 fully populated
switches. With each switch providing 240
GbE ports, the network would provide a
total of 5,040 GbE ports. Where the Cisco
Systems solution supports 8 10GbE ports
#214144
per chassis, the HP solution supports 3X
that number at 24 ports. Thus, for this
hypothetical network of 5,000 user ports,
the HP solution would provide 504 10GbE
ports compared to 168 such ports with the
Cisco Systems solution. (For Cisco Systems,
the 10GbE ports are integrated on to the
Supervisor card. With two Supervisor cards
installed, a maximum of 8 of those 16 ports
can be active.)
Hewlett-Packard
Company
HP 5400R zl2
Switch Series
Performance,
Power
Consumption &
TCO
Tested
October
2014
For a single chassis, the cost for the Cisco
Systems configuration, including support
for 3 years, is $77,816. This is 38% higher
than the comparable HP solution
configuration which includes 3X the
number of usable 10GbE ports and the HP
Limited Lifetime Warranty 2.0 with 3 years
24x7 phone support. Furthermore, HP
requires no software licensing and is SDNready with support for OpenFlow1.3. See
Table 1.
cost of $1,234,430.53 is 27% lower than the
Cisco Systems solution cost of
$1,697,003.87. See Figure 1.
Extrapolated to the larger system and
including the power costs, the HP solution
Tolly engineers benchmarked the
performance of both solutions using a
L2 & L3 IPv4 & IPv6
Performance
Layer 3 IPv4 and IPv6 Full Mesh Chassis Throughput
Across 240 GbE and 8 or 24 10GbE Ports in a Dual-Mesh Configuration
(as reported by Ixia IxNetwork 7.30)
92
80
60
40
52
20
0
64
128
Layer 3 IPv6 - Aggregate Throughput
Percent of Theoretical Maximum
Percent of Theoretical Maximum
Layer 3 IPv4 - Aggregate Throughput
100
256
100
80
86
60
40
20
46
31
0
512 1024 1280 1518 9216
64
128
Packet Size (Bytes)
HP 5412R
256
512 1024 1280 1518 9216
Packet Size (Bytes)
Cisco 4507R+E
Notes: Dual full mesh consisted of the GbE ports in one full mesh and the 10GbE ports in a separate full mesh. HP equipped with 24x 10GbE ports,
Cisco equipped with 8x functional 10GbE ports.
Figure 2
Source: Tolly, October 2014
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Tolly.com
Page 2 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
single chassis outfitted with the maximum
capacity of GbE and 10GbE ports. Testing
was conducted in a dual, full-mesh
configuration. All GbE ports processed bidirectional traffic to all other GbE ports in
the chassis and all 10GbE ports
communicated in the same fashion with all
of the other 10GbE ports in the chassis.
Aggregate Chassis Throughput (Gbps)
(Applicable to all L3 & L2 Performance Tests)
Throughput (Gbps)
1000
Tests encompassed the entire range of
payload sizes from 64-bytes through
jumbo frames of 9216-bytes. Testing was
conducted at layer 2 (switching) and layer 3
(routing). The L3 testing was conducted for
both the IPv4 and IPv6 protocols.
In all three test scenarios and at all payload
sizes, the HP 5412R switch delivered
equivalent or better performance than the
Cisco Systems Catalyst solution.
#214144
800
600
400
200
0
HP 5412R
Cisco 4507R+E
Notes: Maximum chassis throughput when 100% line rate achieved with larger payloads.
Figure 2a
Source: Tolly, October 2014
solution delivered 100% throughput at
packet sizes of 256-bytes and higher. For
64- and 128-byte packets, the Catalyst
delivered 52% and 92% of line rate
respectively.
IPv4 & IPv6 Routing (L3)
In the IPv4 test, the HP solution delivered
100% of theoretical maximum throughput
at all packet sizes. The Cisco Systems
Layer 2 - Full Mesh Chassis Throughput and Latency
Across 240 GbE and 8 or 24 10GbE Ports in a Dual-Mesh Configuration
(as reported by Ixia IxNetwork 7.30)
Layer 2 - Average Latency (1GbE Mesh)
Layer 2 - Aggregate Throughput
(Lower numbers are better)
100
80
92
60
40
24
25
Average Latency (μs)
Percent of Theoretical Maximum
(Higher numbers are better)
52
20
20
15
11
10
5
0
33
7
7
6
6
6
5
4
8
88
4
4
33
3
3
33
128
256
512 1024 1280 1518 9216
0
64
128
256
512 1024 1280 1518 9216
64
Frame Size (Bytes)
Frame Size (Bytes)
HP 5412R
Cisco 4507R+E
Notes: Dual full mesh consisted of the GbE ports in one full mesh and the 10GbE ports in a separate full mesh. HP equipped with 24x 10GbE ports,
Cisco equipped with 8x functional 10GbE ports. Latency was recorded only using the 1 GbE ports at 10% line rate.
Source: Tolly, October 2014
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Figure 3
Tolly.com
Page 3 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
In the IPv6 test, the HP solution again
delivered 100% line rate across the entire
range of packet sizes. In this test, the Cisco
Systems solution delivered line rate for
packet sizes of 512-bytes and higher. See
Figure 2.
#214144
As before, the HP solution delivered 100%
of theoretical maximum throughput at all
frame sizes. The Cisco Systems solution
delivered 100% throughput at frame sizes
of 256-bytes and higher. For 64- and 128byte frames, the Catalyst delivered 52%
and 92% of line rate respectively.
Aggregate Chassis Throughput
Power Consumption
ATIS
Tolly engineers benchmarked the power
consumption of each solution, for a single
chassis outfitted with maximum
configuration of ports, according to the
ATIS recommendations.
Aggregate Chassis Throughput
As the HP solution was configured with 3X
the number of active 10GbE ports, the
aggregate chassis throughput for HP was
50% greater than Cisco Systems with HP’s
chassis throughput at 960Gbps compared
to 640Gbps for Cisco Systems or 320Gbps
more than Cisco Systems. (The throughput
achieved by the Cisco Systems solution in
this test is the maximum chassis
throughput that the chassis can provide
according to Cisco’s published datasheet.)
See Figure 2a.
As with the L3 testing, the HP solution
provided aggregate chassis throughput
that was 50% greater than Cisco Systems.
For HP, this configuration consisted of 240
GbE ports and 24 10GbE ports providing an
aggregate throughput of 960Gbps. For
Cisco Systems, this configuration consisted
of 240GbE ports and 8 10GbE ports
providing an aggregate throughput of
640Gbps.
L2 Switching Latency
Tolly engineers also measured the latency
at each frame size for the GbE ports. In
every instance, the HP solution illustrated
lower latency than the Cisco Systems
solution. Generally, the HP latency was half
that of the Cisco Catalyst system. See Figure
3.
L2 Switching Throughput
In the ATIS calculation, a lower value is
better. The ATIS result for the Cisco Systems
configuration was 1,026.31 compared to
823.97 for the HP system.
This testing setup used the same port
configuration and payload sizes as the L3
test above.
Power Supply Resiliency:
PoE+ Ports Supplied in Failure Scenario
Not Validated by Tolly.
220V AC Power
240
180
216
144
144
144
120
72
60
0
0
All
PS
On
Op
era
eP
tion
al
Two
SF
ailu
re
PS
Full PoE+ Powered ports
Full PoE+ Powered ports
120V AC Power
288
288 240
240
216
216
232
180
144
120
60
0
0
All
Fai
lure
HP 5400 Switch Series
PS
On
Op
era
eP
tion
al
Two
SF
ailu
re
PS
Fai
lure
Cisco 4507R+E
Notes: Data sourced from product datasheets. The Cisco solution has 2 power supplies where the HP solution has 4 power supplies.
Source: Tolly, October 2014
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Figure 4
Tolly.com
Page 4 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
#214144
Chassis Switch Power Consumption Calculations
Uplink to Client Aggregate
Oversubscription Throughput
Ratio
(Gbps)
Solution
# 1GbE
Ports
# 10GbE
Ports
HP 5412R
240
24
1:1
Cisco 4507R
+E
240
8
3:1
ATIS Weighted
Average Power
(WATIS)
Telecommunication
Energy Efficiency Ratio
(Gbps/WATIS)
3-Year Power Cost
960
823.97
1.165
2,403.49
640
1026.31
0.624
2,993.84
5,000-Port System Deployment Calculations
# of
Single Chassis
Chassis in
Single Chassis
Port
# of 10GbE Acquisition Cost
5,000 Port
5,000Power Cost
Solution
Configuration
Ports
(CAPEX) & 3
CAPEX
node
(OPEX) (3 Year)
Year Support
network
Projected 3-year
5,000 Port TCO of 5,000 port
HP
OPEX
Layer-3
Improvement
(Power) Deployment with
24x7x4 support
240 GbE PoE+,
24x 10GbE
21
504
$56,378.82
2,403.49
$1,183,955.22 $50,475.31
$1,234,430.53
N/A
Cisco 240 GbE PoE+,
4507R+E 8x 10GbE
21
168
$77,815.87
2,993.84
$1,634,133.27 $62,870.60
$1,697,003.87
27.26%
HP 5412R
Note: Using fully-populated switches, each network contains 5,040 GbE ports. Pricing for power: EIA.gov, September 2014 Commercial rate.
Source: Tolly, October 2014
Table 1
Telecommunications Energy
Efficiency Ratio (TEER)
(Higher values are better)
1.5
HP is 87% more efficient
1.2
Gbps/Watt
The ATIS results can also be used to
calculate the TEER (where higher results are
better). According to ATIS, “The [TEER]
efficiency standards are specific to
equipment type, network location and
classification. Normalizing these ratings by
functionality enables “apples-to-apples”
equipment comparison. This systemized
assessment results in repeatable and
comparable energy consumption
measurement.”
Telecommunication Energy Efficiency Ratio
0.9
0.6
0.3
0
HP 5412R
Notes: TEER calculated from ATIS Power consumption of switches.
Source: Tolly, October 2014
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Cisco 4507R+E
Tolly.com
Figure 5
Page 5 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
#214144
Solutions Under Test
HP 5400R zl2
C4507R+E
Chassis
HP 5412R zl2 Switch
Catalyst4500E 7 slot chassis
Supervisor Card
2x HP 5400R zl2 Management Module
2x Catalyst 4500 E-Series Supervisor 8-E
Line Cards
12x HP 20-port Gig-T PoE+ / 2-port 10GbE SFP+ v2 zl
Module
5x Catalyst 4500E 48-Port PoE 802.3at
10/100/1000(RJ45)
Power Supplies
4x HP 5400R 2750W PoE+ zl2 Power Supply
Total Port Count
240x 1GbE, 24x 10GbE
2x Catalyst 4500 9000W AC dual input Power Supply
(Data + PoE)
240x 1GbE, 16x 10GbE (8x usable)
Software Version
KB 15.15.0007
15.1(1r)SG1
Table 2
Source: Tolly, November 2014
Where the TEER value for the Cisco Systems
solution is 0.624, the TEER value for the HP
5412R solution is 87% better at 1.165. See
Figure 5.
Resiliency
Hitless Failover of Management
Card
Tolly engineers validated that the 5400R
demonstrated nonstop resiliency where no
packets were lost when the active
management card was failed with 10,000
pps of L3 IPv6 traffic running. With Cisco,
however, engineers noted an 18ms period
during supervisor card failover where
packet loss occurred.
HP 5400R Series Feature Comparison
Coverage Highlights
As Provided by HP. Not Validated by Tolly.
Feature
Chassis-based Sw
witch Solution
HP 5400R zl2
C4507R+E
Rack space
4-7 RU
11 RU
Max PoE+ ports 100v/200v
288/288
N+N
10GBASE-T, SFP+
144/240
1+1
SFP+
IP Base license
IP Base license
Power Supply Redundancy
10 GbE Connectivity
Full L3
IPv6 routing
Virus throttling
Switch Meshing
SDN Ready
Note: These features were not tested by Tolly as part of this evaluation.
Uplink Resiliency
With HP, modules contain 20 GbE ports and
2 port 10 GbE modules thus the network
uplinks can be distributed across many
more modules greatly decreasing the
impact of a line card failure.
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Source: HP, November 2014
Power over Ethernet & Power
Supply Resiliency
While not part of the test evaluation, Tolly
engineers researched each vendor’s claims
for support for providing PoE+ support to
ports in the event of power supply failures.
Because the HP solution provisions 4 power
supplies, the HP switch can continue to
Tolly.com
Table 3
provide PoE+ to 144 ports even with 2
power supplies off line. The Cisco Systems
switch would be completely without
power should 2 power supplies fail. See
Figure 4.
Page 6 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
#214144
Cost Details: HP 5400R zl2 Series Switch of 240 GbE, PoE+ and 24 10GbE Ports
Item
Hardware
Product SKU
Description
Qty
J9822A
HP 5412R zl2 Switch
1
3,734
3,733.99
J9830A
HP 5400R 2750W PoE+ zl2 Power Supply
4
2,194
8,775.96
J9827A
HP 5400R zl2 Management Module
1
1,917
1,916.99
J9536A
HP 20-port Gig-T PoE+ / 2-port 10GbE SFP+ v2 zl Module
12
3,496
41,951.88
Support Cost for 3-year 24x7
0
Support
Unit Price (US $) Ext. Price (US $) Subtotal (US $)
$
56,378.82
Included in pu
urchase price
Total Cost of a Switch with 240 PoE+ GbE and 24 100 GbE portts with 3-year 24xx7x4hr Support
$56,378.82
Cost Details: Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E Switch of 240 GbE, PoE+ and 16 10GbE Ports
Item
Product SKU
WS-C4507R+E
Description
Qty Unit Price (US $) Ext. Price (US $) Subtotal (US $)
Catalyst4500E 7 slot chassis for 48Gbps/slot, fan, no
1
power supply
$5,002.99
$5,002.99
Catalyst 4500 9000W AC dual input Power Supply
(Data + PoE)
$4,136.99
$8,273.98
PWRC45-9000ACV
Hardware
Catalyst 4500 E-Series Supervisor 8-E (includes 8x
WS-X45-SUP8-E
10GbE ports)
Catalyst 4500E 48-Port PoE 802.3at
WS-X4748-RJ45V+E
10/100/1000(RJ45)
Support
CON-SNT-C4507REV
Cisco SMARTnet extended service agreement (1 year)
2
2
$14,301.99
$28,603.98
5
$6,433.99
$32,169.95
3
1,254.99
3,764.97
$
74,050.90
$
3,764.97
Total Cost of a Switch with 240 PoE+ GbE and 16 10 Gb
bE porrts with 3-year 244x7x4hr Support
$77,815.87
Note: Hardware and support pricing from CDW in US dollars, November 2014.
Power cost from http://www.eia.gov/electricity/monthly/epm_table_grapher.cfm?t=epmt_5_03 .Calculated using September 2014 commercial rate.
Source: HP, Tolly, November 2014
Table 4
Quality of Service:
8 Queues
Tolly validated the quality of service (QoS)
functionality of each system. Specifically,
engineers verified that each system
implemented 8 queues and supported
flexible egress queue management. Eight
different traffic types, including VoIP, video,
HTTP and FTP, were sent at at different
rates. Engineers deliberately
oversubscribed several receiving ports,
varying the traffic patterns and validating
that the two highest priority traffic types
could be transmitted with no loss. Strict
queuing configured on the highest priority
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Test Equipment Summary
The Tolly Group gratefully acknowledges the providers
of test equipment/software used in this project.
Vendor
Product
Ixia
Optixia XG12
Software: IxNetwork 7.30 EA
Tolly.com
Web
http://www.ixiacom.com
Page 7 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
queue for both switches. Tolly engineers
validated that QoS was functioning
properly on both systems.
Test Setup &
Methodology
Test Environment
Tests were performed using Ixia’s
IxNetwork 7.30 test tool, and 2x Optixia
XG12 Chassis, populated with 16-port 1GbE
modules and 16-port 10GbE modules.
All switches tested were similarlyconfigured and were running the latest
software at the time of testing.
Performance and Latency
Performance was measured using the RFC
2544 and 2889 benchmarks included in
Ixia’s IxNetwork 7.30. For each switch, each
port was connected to an Ixia interface. In
the test application, two logical full-mesh
configurations were applied, grouping the
1GbE ports and 10GbE ports separately.
Power Consumption Tests for TCO
Analysis
To measure the power consumption,
engineers used the same configuration on
the HP 5400R and Cisco 4507R+E. Each
switch had 240 GbE ports in a snake
configuration and (24 for HP, 8 for Cisco)
10GbE ports in a second snake
configuration, passing bidirectional traffic.
Power consumption was measured by a
Voltech PM300A Universal Power Analyzer.
ATIS Power Consumption
Tolly engineers followed the methodology
prescribed by two ATIS (Alliance for
Telecommunications Industry Solutions)
standards documents:
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
#214144
ATIS-0600015.03.2009: Energy
Efficiency for Telecommunication
Equipment: Methodology for
Measuring and Reporting For Router
and Ethernet Switch Products, and
ATIS-0600015.2009: Energy Efficiency
for Telecommunications Equipment:
Methodology for Measuring and
Reporting - General Requirements
The power consumption of each product
was measured at various load points: idle
(0%), 50% and 100%. The test traffic
consisted of an Internet Mix (IMIX)
distribution of TCP packets of various sizes:
57% at 64-bytes, 7% at 570-bytes, 16% at
594-bytes and 20% at 1,518-bytes.
The final power consumption was reported
as a weighted average calculated using the
formula:
WATIS = 0.1*(Power draw at 0% load) +
0.8*(Power draw at 50% load) +
0.1*(Power draw at 100% load).
The formula above applies to access layer
switches. Once again, all measurements
were taken over a period of two minutes at
each load level, and repeated three times
to ensure repeatability of the results. Final
results were reported as the average of the
three runs.
Power Costs
Power costs were calculated using the
September 2014 “commercial” rate of
$00.1110 per kilowatt hour as determined
by the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (http://www.eia.gov).
Hitless Failover of Management
Card
This test was designed to determine if the
switch could deliver “hitless” failover meaning no lost traffic - when its active
management card was failed and the
backup card automatically brought online.
Tolly engineers used a subset of the Layer 3,
IPv6 1GbE full mesh test to determine the
failover time for each solution. Traffic
stream consisted of 1024-byte frames at
10,000 packets per second. 12 ports were
used for each solution.
Quality of Service: 8 Queues
Also as part of the evaluation, Tolly
validated the QoS functionality of each
system. Using 8 traffic types including VoIP,
video, HTTP and FTP, at different rates,
engineers oversubscribed 5 GbE receiving
ports by sending traffic from a 10GbE port,
varying the traffic patterns to validate that
QoS was functioning properly.
Telecommunications Energy
Efficiency Ratio (TEER)
The TEER (Telecommunications Energy
Efficiency Ratio) was developed by the
Alliance for Telecommunications Industry
Standards (ATIS) as a measure of network
efficiency. The standard provides a
comprehensive methodology for
measuring and reporting energy
consumption of telecommunications
equipment.
Tolly.com
Page 8 of 9
HP 5400R zl2 vs Cisco Catalyst 4507R+E
#214144
About Tolly
Interaction with Competitors
The Tolly Group companies have been
delivering world-class IT services for more
than 25 years. Tolly is a leading global
provider of third-party validation services
for vendors of IT products, components
and services.
In accordance with Tolly’s Fair Testing Charter, Tolly personnel invited
representatives from Cisco Systems, Inc. to participate in the test. Cisco
Systems did not respond to the invitation.
You can reach the company by E-mail at
[email protected], or by telephone at
+1 561.391.5610.
For more information on the
Tolly Fair Testing Charter, visit:
Visit Tolly on the Internet at:
http://www.tolly.com
http://www.tolly.com/FTC.aspx
Terms of Usage
This document is provided, free-of-charge, to help you understand whether a given product, technology or service merits additional
investigation for your particular needs. Any decision to purchase a product must be based on your own assessment of suitability
based on your needs. The document should never be used as a substitute for advice from a qualified IT or business professional. This
evaluation was focused on illustrating specific features and/or performance of the product(s) and was conducted under controlled,
laboratory conditions. Certain tests may have been tailored to reflect performance under ideal conditions; performance may vary
under real-world conditions. Users should run tests based on their own real-world scenarios to validate performance for their own
networks.
Reasonable efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the data contained herein but errors and/or oversights can occur. The test/
audit documented herein may also rely on various test tools the accuracy of which is beyond our control. Furthermore, the
document relies on certain representations by the sponsor that are beyond our control to verify. Among these is that the software/
hardware tested is production or production track and is, or will be, available in equivalent or better form to commercial customers.
Accordingly, this document is provided "as is," and Tolly Enterprises, LLC (Tolly) gives no warranty, representation or undertaking,
whether express or implied, and accepts no legal responsibility, whether direct or indirect, for the accuracy, completeness, usefulness
or suitability of any information contained herein. By reviewing this document, you agree that your use of any information contained
herein is at your own risk, and you accept all risks and responsibility for losses, damages, costs and other consequences resulting
directly or indirectly from any information or material available on it. Tolly is not responsible for, and you agree to hold Tolly and its
related affiliates harmless from any loss, harm, injury or damage resulting from or arising out of your use of or reliance on any of the
information provided herein.
Tolly makes no claim as to whether any product or company described herein is suitable for investment. You should obtain your own
independent professional advice, whether legal, accounting or otherwise, before proceeding with any investment or project related
to any information, products or companies described herein. When foreign translations exist, the English document is considered
authoritative. To assure accuracy, only use documents downloaded directly from Tolly.com. No part of any document may be
reproduced, in whole or in part, without the specific written permission of Tolly. All trademarks used in the document are owned by
their respective owners. You agree not to use any trademark in or as the whole or part of your own trademarks in connection with
any activities, products or services which are not ours, or in a manner which may be confusing, misleading or deceptive or in a
manner that disparages us or our information, projects or developments.
214144 ipljmtS-jt-wt-2014-12-11-VerM
© 2014 Tolly Enterprises, LLC
Tolly.com
Page 9 of 9