From: Lincoln Yeoh <lyeoh@pop.jaring.my>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl>
To: Quinton Lawson <qlawson@adelphia.net>
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED)
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 23:34:44 +0800
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.1.20050123233139.03a3adf8@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050123143548.GA4406@dcc.uchile.cl>
References: <000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis>
<20050123034709.84430.qmail@web30703.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
<000901c50103$946d2e00$6501a8c0@travis>
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.
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org
Cc: lyeoh@pop.jaring.my, alvherre@dcc.uchile.cl, qlawson@adelphia.net, pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000 Slower Than Windows XP (SOLVED)
In-Reply-To: <5.2.1.1.1.20050123233139.03a3adf8@localhost>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox