-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11/28/07 11:13, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 07:29 -0700, Scott Ribe wrote:
>>> Yes, very much so. Windows lacks the fork() concept, which is what makes
>>> PostgreSQL much slower there.
>> So grossly slower process creation would kill postgres connection times. But
>> what about the cases where persistent connections are used? Is it the case
>> also that Windows has a performance bottleneck for interprocess
>> communication?
>
> There is at least one other bottleneck, probably more than one. Context
> switching between processes is a lot more expensive than on Unix (given
> that win32 is optimized towards context switching between threads). NTFS
Isn't that why Apache2 has separate "thread mode" and 1.x-style
pre-forked mode?
> isn't optimized for having 100+ processes reading and writing to the
> same file. Probably others..
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
%SYSTEM-F-FISH, my hovercraft is full of eels
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHTaP3S9HxQb37XmcRAoFfAJ4gQJIzI95FWyukNy0+7mt2NT+MFgCbBpt/
pdIzLmq1Rndnt3busADFHP8=
=NgLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----