

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zeugswetter Andreas SB SD [mailto:ZeugswetterA@spardat.at] 
> Sent: 13 December 2001 15:47
> To: lockhart@fourpalms.org; Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; pgsql-cygwin@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [CYGWIN] [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin
> 
> 
> > > Right, 7.2b4 passes *all* tests both parallel and
> > sequential on Windows 2000
> > > Server.
> > > On XP Pro, and by the sounds of it, any other non-server 
> releases of 
> > > Windows, parallel tests will fail randomly due to Winsock
> > backlog limit of 5
> > > on these systems (as pointed out by Jason Tishler and 
> documented in 
> > > FAQ_MSWIN).
> > 
> > So ignore the question I sent a minute ago. Thanks for the report!!
> 
> Problem with this report is, that it most certainly is on a 
> single CPU 
> system. Problems currently only reproduce on SMP, if I read the mails 
> correctly.
> 
> Andreas
> 

Although the original test was in Windows XP on a single processor box, the
final tests that all passed were on Windows 2000 Server running on a Dual
PIII 933MHz box with 1Gb of RAM. The motherboard is an MSI Pro 694D.

Regards, Dave.

Thu, 13 Dec 2001 16:06:04 -0000
Dave Page <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
Re: [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin

Dave Page wrote:

>Although the original test was in Windows XP on a single processor box, the
>final tests that all passed were on Windows 2000 Server running on a Dual
>PIII 933MHz box with 1Gb of RAM. The motherboard is an MSI Pro 694D.
>
Has anyone done any tests comparing PostgreSQL on Win32 and *NIX 
platforms on
same/similar hardware ?

I suspect that the initial connect could be slower on Win32 due to 
reported slowness of
fork() there, but are there other issues ?

-------------------
Hannu



Fri, 14 Dec 2001 23:31:00 +0500
Hannu Krosing <hannu@tm.ee>
Re: [HACKERS] Platform Testing - Cygwin