Обсуждение: Strange behaviour of Postgresql (Postgresql 7.3.3 cygwin and PeerDirect beta4) on Win2k SP4
Strange behaviour of Postgresql (Postgresql 7.3.3 cygwin and PeerDirect beta4) on Win2k SP4
От
"Markus Heinz"
Дата:
Hello,
i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments).
I've ran the benchmark on three pc's
1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM
2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM
3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM
using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs.
To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz
and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+.
Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ?
Best regards
Markus Heinz
Вложения
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote: > Hello, > > i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). > I've ran the benchmark on three pc's > 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM > 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM > 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM > > using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. > To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz > and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. > Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ? No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while Winnt had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had much slower stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the net about it. It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still running, because the software running on them will be slower on machines running 2k and above.
IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'? scott.marlowe wrote: > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote: > > >>Hello, >> >>i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). >>I've ran the benchmark on three pc's >> 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM >> 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM >> 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM >> >>using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. >>To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz >>and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. >>Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ? > > > No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for > applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while Winnt > had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had much slower > stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the net about it. > It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still running, because > the software running on them will be slower on machines running 2k and > above. > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
Actually, those IPC calls are a problem in general on the INTEL platform. Something like 200 instructions cycles are requiredfor each one. On a sun SPARC, with it's windowed registers, the average comes down to something like 10 cycles. Hopefully, on this new 64 bit archtecture that intel is introducing, the one the emulates the old PC architecture insteadof implementing it again, they have absorbed all the last 15 years of advances in Server Processors and COMPLETELYthrow away all the old INTEL architecture baggage. Dennis Gearon wrote: > IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'? > > scott.marlowe wrote: > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote: >> >> >>> Hello, >>> >>> i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small >>> java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). >>> I've ran the benchmark on three pc's >>> 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD >>> 7200RPM >>> 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM >>> 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM >>> >>> using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. >>> To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than >>> the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz >>> and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. >>> Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ? >> >> >> >> No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for >> applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while >> Winnt had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had >> much slower stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the >> net about it. It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still >> running, because the software running on them will be slower on >> machines running 2k and above. >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
I thought it stood for 'Interprocess Communication'. > Actually, those IPC calls are a problem in general on the INTEL platform. Something like 200 instructions cycles are required for each one. > > On a sun SPARC, with it's windowed registers, the average comes down to something like 10 cycles. > > Hopefully, on this new 64 bit archtecture that intel is introducing, the one the emulates the old PC architecture instead of implementing it again, they have absorbed all the last 15 years of advances in Server Processors and COMPLETELY throw away all the old INTEL architecture baggage. > > Dennis Gearon wrote: > > > IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'? > > > > scott.marlowe wrote: > > > >> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small > >>> java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). > >>> I've ran the benchmark on three pc's > >>> 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD > >>> 7200RPM > >>> 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM > >>> 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM > >>> > >>> using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. > >>> To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than > >>> the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz > >>> and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. > >>> Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ? > >> > >> > >> > >> No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for > >> applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while > >> Winnt had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had > >> much slower stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the > >> net about it. It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still > >> running, because the software running on them will be slower on > >> machines running 2k and above. > >> > >> > >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > >> TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > >> subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > >> message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > >> > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html >
hehe. Might as well be, huh? IPC = Interprocess Communication for all those who don't know. Sorry for using a TLA without defining it. On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote: > IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'? > > scott.marlowe wrote: > > > On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote: > > > > > >>Hello, > >> > >>i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). > >>I've ran the benchmark on three pc's > >> 1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM > >> 2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM > >> 3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM > >> > >>using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. > >>To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz > >>and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. > >>Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ? > > > > > > No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for > > applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while Winnt > > had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had much slower > > stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the net about it. > > It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still running, because > > the software running on them will be slower on machines running 2k and > > above. > > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly > > > >
Sorry.. I just couldn't resist.
So, what's a TLA'?
:)
scott.marlowe wrote:
So, what's a TLA'?
:)
scott.marlowe wrote:
hehe. Might as well be, huh? IPC = Interprocess Communication for all those who don't know. Sorry for using a TLA without defining it. On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Dennis Gearon wrote:IPC, 'interrupt procedure call'? scott.marlowe wrote:On Thu, 17 Jul 2003, Markus Heinz wrote:Hello, i'm evaluating Postgresql on win32 (winnt, win2k). I'm using a small java benchmark from FirstSQL (see attachments). I've ran the benchmark on three pc's1) Pentium III 750 MHz Winnt Sp6a, 372 MB PC100 RAM, IBM 26GB HD 7200RPM2) Pentium 4 1.4GHz Win2k SP4, 256MB RRAM, WD 20GB HD 7200RPM3) Athlon XP 2400+ Win2k SP4, 512 DDR 266, Seagate 120GB HD 7200RPM using identical cygwin and PeerDirect configs on all PCs. To my surprise the Pentium III on Winnt was three times faster than the Pentium IV 1.4 GHz and two times faster than the Athlon XP 2400+. Are there known problems with postgressql and Win2k SP4 ?No, Microsoft decided to basically change the preferred method for applications to talk to each other with the release of win2k. while Winnt had fast IPC, (the IPC that cygwin uses relies on it) 2k had much slower stock IPC. There are a few articles floating around the net about it. It's one of the reasons many older NT servers are still running, because the software running on them will be slower on machines running 2k and above. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
DeJuan Jackson wrote: > Sorry.. I just couldn't resist. > So, what's a TLA'? Three Letter Acronym ^ ^ ^ Joe