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 47E189DCAB1 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:38:16 -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 01957-05 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:38:14 -0400 (AST) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.metronet.co.uk (mail.metronet.co.uk [213.162.97.75]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3C69DCAD3 for ; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:38:12 -0400 (AST) Received: from mainbox.archonet.com (84-51-143-99.archon037.adsl.metronet.co.uk [84.51.143.99]) by smtp.metronet.co.uk (MetroNet Mail) with ESMTP id BE84C43B8CB; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:27:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [192.168.1.17] (client17.office.archonet.com [192.168.1.17]) by mainbox.archonet.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 068F7FF1A; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:27:35 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <438DE107.9000507@archonet.com> Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:27:35 +0000 From: Richard Huxton User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (X11/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Franklin Haut Cc: 'Ron' , pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: RES: pg_dump slow References: <000401c5f5ca$0aed7420$8500a8c0@FRANKLIN> In-Reply-To: <000401c5f5ca$0aed7420$8500a8c0@FRANKLIN> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000] X-Spam-Score: 0 X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200511/557 X-Sequence-Number: 15814 Franklin Haut wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, my problem is that the pg_dump takes 40 secs to complete under > WinXP and 50 minutes under W2K! The same database, the same hardware!, > only diferrent Operational Systems. > > The hardware is: > Pentium4 HT 3.2 GHz > 1024 Mb Memory > HD 120Gb SATA There have been reports of very slow network performance on Win2k systems with the default configuration. You'll have to check the archives for details I'm afraid. This might apply to you. If you're happy that doesn't affect you then I'd look at the disk system - perhaps XP has newer drivers than Win2k. What do the MS performance-charts show is happening? Specifically, CPU and disk I/O. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd