What is the reason for 4 times elapsed time difference?

Please see my image and answer the question that is at its bottom.

In short, an application is running on two Wintel computers with very similar properties, and it displays a big difference in performance. Each application essentially creates dynamically an intricate sequence of queries and eventually INSERTs something in a linked table. All linked tables (a few dozens) are identical (copy command was used) instances and are located on the same hard drive that the application itself.
I'd appreciate any ideas about why it might be the case.
Faster one is a server of our datacenter service provider, slower one is my workstation.
Thanks.
LVL 1
midfdeAsked:
Who is Participating?
 
aikimarkConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Questions:
1. Are the inputs identical?
2. How does the data relate to the linked list?

===========
Back in my systems programming days, I encountered a system job that performed poorly.  My investigation revealed that the vendor used the first one or two letters of the job name to place job-related information in one of 26/676 linked lists.  Since all of our production jobs began with "P", we were channeling the data into a very few and very long linked lists.  A little massaging of the job information eliminated the bottleneck.  This affected searching of the linked list data structure as well as adding to each list.

Locality matters, both in memory as well as external storage (HDD/SDD).
0
 
jerryb30Connect With a Mentor Commented:
The obvious difference might be HD speed. The SSD is going to be faster. I cannot think of a difference between Access 2003 & 2007 which would cause one to be faster than another.
I once ran into a situation where with the same chip and other hardware, the older OS was 5 times faster that the new OS, which probably a factor of how intensive read/write operations were done. (10 years ago, though.)
0
 
peter57rConnect With a Mentor Commented:
"Faster one is a server of our datacenter service provider, slower one is my workstation."

Eh?  You are saying your server (a Dell Inspiron?) is the machine running WinXp and your workstation  is running Win Server 2003 R2?
I would have thought it was the other way round in which case your report shows the workstation being faster.

But with so many differences - O/S , Office version and I assume processing load, it's anybody's guess.  Although it's not the outcome I would have predicted beforehand.
0
Improve Your Query Performance Tuning

In this FREE six-day email course, you'll learn from Janis Griffin, Database Performance Evangelist. She'll teach 12 steps that you can use to optimize your queries as much as possible and see measurable results in your work. Get started today!

 
midfdeAuthor Commented:

Correction!
I am sorry, I've fixed my terrible mistake on the picture. I apologize :-(
The cells in Output row should have been swapped, and this is what I've just done.
So computer with SSD (my workstation) displays lousy performance as compared to HD equipped one.
0
 
midfdeAuthor Commented:
Inspiron 9400 with SSD is my workstation. Sorry for the confusion. Shame on me...
0
 
jerryb30Commented:
Xeon is a quad core. Rated much higher that the Core Duo of the T2300. That might easily cause the 4x processing time. Aside from the inherent speed of the Xeon, at the cost of power usage.

Any reason you expected things to be different?
0
 
midfdeAuthor Commented:
In my opinion CPU clock, RAM size, and HD speed are crucial factors of performance level on different computers with
nearly identical instruction set
functionally nearly the same operating system
.
Although 2.7 GHz is better than 1.7 GHz, it is hard for me to imagine that it may cause fourfold elapsed time reduction, particularly for a database-heavy application.

 Well, I have a lot to say about all this but... I'd like to hear from Experts of this site something that might dispel my astonishment.
0
 
aikimarkCommented:
C: is local and D: is network mapped drive.
Different versions of Access
0
 
als315Commented:
What disk system is used on server? May be there is some RAID? Raid 10 with SAS disks is compatible with SSD drives. Other reason - Windows XP have no native support for SSD disks. May be your drive was not properly aligned. Can you make Crystal Disk Mark tests on both computers?
http://crystalmark.info/software/CrystalDiskMark/index-e.html
0
 
aikimarkCommented:
Other processes running on the system during your test.
Device/channel contention
0
 
midfdeAuthor Commented:
>>C: is local and D: is network mapped drive
Both are two partitions on SSD.
>>Other processes running on the system during your test.
Server runs a few user's processes, my workstation -- well usual stuff, MS Access taking almost all its resources.
>>Device/channel contention
Sorry, I have no idea about this one.

In fact my workstation is a regular developer-oriented Dell laptop that has always been much slower than the server. I hoped though that recent replacement of HD  with SSD might fix this, because apparently SSD is faster than whatever rotating RAID might be.
BTW, SSD did improve performance, and I feel it as its responsiveness is better. On the other hand the application is more of DB data mining than pure computing so disk speed was expected to be crucial.
0
 
Jeffrey CoachmanMIS LiasonCommented:
<Each application essentially creates dynamically an intricate sequence of queries and eventually INSERTs something in a linked table. All linked tables (a few dozens) are identical (copy command was used) instances and are located on the same hard drive that the application itself.>
...Can you also take a moment to explain what this all means and why it is needed?
Perhaps there is a simpler approach...
0
 
midfdeAuthor Commented:
>>...why it is needed
PACRAT software holds complex HVAC systems models in its database. PACRAT EXPERT application periodically analyses temporal data in order to detect 18 (see above) kinds of anomalies and put them into a linked table.

>>...what this all means...
The model includes at least hundreds pieces of SQL statements, and Expert applies them to newly available time series.
An example is here

>>Perhaps there is a simpler approach
No doubt about that, but... my question was about surprising difference in performance, whatever [in]efficient our approach is. Remember?
0
 
jerryb30Commented:
When you observe the operation, can you tell if all cpu's are firing?  Enabled?
Is memory/CPU usage for processes similar?
Are the processes disk intensive (lots of small i/o ops)?
0
 
Jeffrey CoachmanConnect With a Mentor MIS LiasonCommented:
< I hoped though that recent replacement of HD  with SSD might fix this, because apparently SSD is faster than whatever rotating RAID might be.>
Not really, ...a top-of-the-line Raid can approach 0 Wait time.

SSHD's are advertised to be "faster", because there are no moving parts, only memory chips, but this is misleading.
But like all "new" technologies, there is a lot of smoke and mirrors, and misrepresentations
...and in most cases they are faster, ...but this is compared 1:1 with a Conventional HD.

The type of memory used in a SSHD can actually make the performance comparable to, or worse than a high end Standard HD.
Let alone comparing it to a high end RAID.

It also depends of what the HD is doing (Reading/Writing/Searching), and how fragmented the data is.
With Raids you have to consider the type of HD, the rotation speed, the number of Drives, the number of "Channels", ...etc.

So this is not always Apples to Apples.

A far a "ruggedness" is concerned, a SSHD is almost always superior.


JeffCoachman
0
 
midfdeAuthor Commented:
The answer is yet to come.
0
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.