Re: Strange behaviour of Postgresql (Postgresql 7.3.3

hehe. Might as well be, huh? IPC = Interprocess Communication for all
those who don't know. Sorry for using a TLA without defining it.

On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote:

> 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
> >
>
>