(1) Latency and throughput don't necessarily correlate well. When blasting quantities of data to test throughput, TCP_NODELAY might not matter much -- a full buffer will be sent without a delay anyway. What do you get on a ping while running the throughput test? (2) Besides the TCP_NODELAY issue, another issue which has caused similar problems is a mismatch between half duplex and full duplex in the configuration of the switch and the server. Sometimes auto-negotiate doesn't work as advertised; you might want to try setting the configuration explicitly, if you aren't already doing so. -Kevin >>> Dalibor Sramek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 09/14/05 8:02 AM >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:05:00AM -0400, Merlin Moncure wrote: > 5. do select array_accum(q::text) from generate_series(1,10000) q;
I made the tests you suggested and the pattern is clear. The difference between local and remote command execution is caused by moving data over the network. E.g. the command above takes 700 ms locally and 1500 ms remotely. Remote explain analyze takes exactly the 700 ms. I downloaded PCATTCP - http://www.pcausa.com/Utilities/pcattcp.htm and the measured throughput between the two machines is over 10000 kB/s. PCATTCP allows setting TCP_NODELAY but it had no effect on the transfer speed. So the difference between local and remote execution should IMHO stay in the 10 ms range. Definitely not 800 ms. The 8.1 has the same problem. Just for the record: the server PC is Dell Precision 330 with 3Com 3C920 integrated network card. OS MS Windows Professional 2002 with service pack 2. There is Symantec Antivirus installed - which I have (hopefully) completely disabled. Thanks for any help Dalibor Sramek ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend