Re: Strange behaviour of Postgresql (Postgresql 7.3.3

IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'?

scott.marlowe wrote:

> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote:
>
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments).
>>I've ran the benchmark on three pc's
>> 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM
>> 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM
>> 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM
>>
>>using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs.
>>To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz
>>and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+.
>>Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ?
>
>
> No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for
> applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while Winnt
> had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had much slower
> stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the net about it.
> It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still running, because
> the software running on them will be slower on machines running 2k and
> above.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org so that your
> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
>