While not an FAQ (yet?) I find it interesting that installing a QoS packet
scheduler would _improve_ response - (I'm assuming there's no other
concurrent traffic other than DB traffic).
Anyone know why this would be the case or have any ideas? Might it improve
performance for other network soft
On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 10:25:30PM -0600, Quinton Lawson wrote:
> By default, Windows XP installs the QoS Packet Scheduler service. It
> is not installed by default on Windows 2000. After I installed QoS
> Packet Scheduler on the Windows 2000 machine, the latency problem
> vanished.
Maybe this
t: Re: [GENERAL] Windows 2000
Slower Than Windows XP
Sounds like it could be a networking issue to me.Perhaps
the xp machine is resolving the db server namemore efficiently.do both
the xp machine and the win2k machine1 have comparable network cards?2
on the same subnet as each other and t
Sounds like it could be a networking issue to me.
Perhaps the xp machine is resolving the db server name
more efficiently.
do both the xp machine and the win2k machine
1 have comparable network cards?
2 on the same subnet as each other and the db?
3 using the same dns or wins server?
you could try
I have been having quite a time trying to figure
this one out. I have installed PostgreSQL OLE DB drivers (ver
1.0.0.15) on two separate machines. The only difference between the
two machines is the OS, 2000 Pro (SP4) and XP Pro (SP2) and both are fully
updated from fresh installs. The Po
