VI slowed down after changing PC

[SeanJ]

I have recentely changed development PC from a Dell 2.4GHz Pentium core duo with 2GB of RAM to an advantech industrial computer 2.14GHz Pentium core duo with 4GB of RAM.

After the transition my VI which is used for data extraction from a mySQL database runs at approximately 1 seventh the original speed.  My task which previously took about two minutes is now taking over ten minutes.

When I look at the task manager only about 50% of the processor is being used.

Does anyone have any idea what could be causing the massive slowdown?

[Ben]

---

SeanJ wrote:

I have recentely changed development PC from a Dell 2.4GHz Pentium core duo with 2GB of RAM to an advantech industrial computer 2.14GHz Pentium core duo with 4GB of RAM.

After the transition my VI which is used for data extraction from a mySQL database runs at approximately 1 seventh the original speed.  My task which previously took about two minutes is now taking over ten minutes.

When I look at the task manager only about 50% of the processor is being used.

Does anyone have any idea what could be causing the massive slowdown?

---

50% says that there is CPU left over and something else is getting in the way.

1) Does this machine have virus checker/differnt than the Dell?

2) Disk speed difference?

3) Compare the cache specs between the machines.

4) Is the slower machine's disk in need of defragmentation?

5) If you exand the collumns in the Windows taks manager, do you see page swapping or page fail waits?

6) THe trace execution toolkit may shed some light on what is happening.

That is my short list of "any idea"s.

Ben

[PhillipBrooks]

To add to Ben's suggestions; check the state of the network interface. Most installations use auto-negotiate.

Some older type Ethernet interfaces will auto-negotiate to 10 Mb/sec; that would slow your raw network access down from 100 Mb/sec by a factor of 10. 

It might not be the driver; a poor Ethernet cable may cause the connection to negotiate to a slower speed.

[Yamaeda]

Would that be 50% of total CPU? If so 1 core is spinning wildly and the other is unused, which sounds like bad code.

[SeanJ]

Hi All,

Thanks for all your suggestions.

In the end it turned out that the 'industrial PC' came supplied with a XGi Volari z9 chipsetgraphics card with 32MB of onboard memory. 

I didn't realise they made cards that bad!  It's a new PC!

I upgraded it to a club 8400S and it's working much better now.

[Ben]

---

SeanJ wrote:

Hi All,

Thanks for all your suggestions.

In the end it turned out that the 'industrial PC' came supplied with a XGi Volari z9 chipsetgraphics card with 32MB of onboard memory. 

I didn't realise they made cards that bad!  It's a new PC!

I upgraded it to a club 8400S and it's working much better now.

---

quoting myself from above;

"

3) Compare the cache specs between the machines.

"

THe bus speed inside the chip can run faster than the external busses provided it never has to go "off-board". Cached memory will be used if it available. When your data set get large the cache has to refresh from teh physical memory so it slows down to memory bus speed. With a large on-board cache the CPU can run longer with out the slow down.

Ben