X-Original-To: pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@postgresql.org Received: from localhost (wm.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D0779FB355 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:15:58 -0300 (ADT) Received: from postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.128]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 42024-03 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:15:50 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey- Received: from mail.logix-tt.com (mail.logix-tt.com [212.211.145.186]) by postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C788C9FB2A2 for ; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 06:15:49 -0300 (ADT) Received: from kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (80-219-241-140.dclient.hispeed.ch [80.219.241.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9DC656BB; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:17:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kingfisher.intern.logix-tt.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3FF18148BC0; Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:16:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <44DC4AD3.1030809@logix-tt.com> Date: Fri, 11 Aug 2006 11:16:03 +0200 From: Markus Schaber Organization: Logical Tracking and Tracing International AG, Switzerland User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (X11/20060713) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Phil Cairns Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Slow access to PostgreSQL server References: <12dm0u95lncnte0@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <12dm0u95lncnte0@corp.supernews.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.94.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.135 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=FORGED_RCVD_HELO X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200608/204 X-Sequence-Number: 20389 Hi, Phil, Phil Cairns wrote: > Has anyone experienced this sort of thing before? We're running with > 8.0.4. My application uses libpg, while another application is using > OLEDB. Both the native and OLEDB layers exhibit the delay on the "slow" > machines, and have no problems on the "fast" machines. Note that the > laptops are in no way inferior to the desktop machines in terms of CPU, > RAM, etc. Can you try to rsync / netcat some large files / random data through nonstandard ports in both directions, and see whether that reproduces the behaviour? I also think using PostgreSQL on port 80 might be an interesting test. It might be a driver or "security software" issue... When http and network drive transfers work fast, but transfers on nonstandard ports (postgreSQL uses 5432) work slow, I'd suspect some personal firewall or antivirus network filtering software. HTH, Marku -- Markus Schaber | Logical Tracking&Tracing International AG Dipl. Inf. | Software Development GIS Fight against software patents in EU! www.ffii.org www.nosoftwarepatents.org