Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED)

From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh(at)pop(dot)jaring(dot)my>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)dcc(dot)uchile(dot)cl>, Quinton Lawson <qlawson(at)adelphia(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED)
Date: 2005-01-23 15:34:44
Message-ID: 5.2.1.1.1.20050123233139.03a3adf8@localhost
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-docs pgsql-general

While not an FAQ (yet?) I find it interesting that installing a QoS packet
scheduler would _improve_ response - (I'm assuming there's no other
concurrent traffic other than DB traffic).

Anyone know why this would be the case or have any ideas? Might it improve
performance for other network software as well...

Regards,
Link.

At 11:35 AM 1/23/2005 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:25:30PM -0600, Quinton Lawson wrote:
>
> > By default, Windows XP installs the QoS Packet Scheduler service. It
> > is not installed by default on Windows 2000. After I installed QoS
> > Packet Scheduler on the Windows 2000 machine, the latency problem
> > vanished.
>
>Maybe this deserves a FAQ entry or doc note somewhere.

In response to

Browse pgsql-docs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2005-01-23 15:44:54 Doc tarball should include manual pages?
Previous Message neo anderson 2005-01-23 15:31:39 Re: A Question

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Lonni J Friedman 2005-01-23 15:46:26 Re: Dead-end in PostgreSQL 8.0 fresh installation (while
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-01-23 14:35:48 Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED)