X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877CA9DC809 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:10:43 -0400 (AST) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 67063-05 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:10:42 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDC7F9DC807 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:10:40 -0400 (AST) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBLGAXBX013701; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:10:33 -0500 (EST) To: Richard Huxton cc: Josep Maria Pinyol Fontseca , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Windows performance again In-reply-to: <43A92758.6060709@archonet.com> References: <43A91ABE.9070000@endepro.com> <43A92758.6060709@archonet.com> Comments: In-reply-to Richard Huxton message dated "Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:58:48 +0000" Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:10:33 -0500 Message-ID: <13700.1135181433@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.028 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028] X-Spam-Score: 0.028 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200512/536 X-Sequence-Number: 16357 Richard Huxton writes: > Josep Maria Pinyol Fontseca wrote: >> Network utilization: 0% > It's *got* to be the network configuration on the client machine. We've seen gripes of this sort before --- check the list archives for possible fixes. I seem to recall something about a "QoS patch", as well as suggestions to get rid of third-party packages that might be interfering with the TCP stack. regards, tom lane