We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
Thanks
Regarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>
|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.
|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>
|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
Showing posts with label core. Show all posts
Showing posts with label core. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Dual Quad Core vs 4 Dual Core Performance
We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual co
re
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
Ekrem nsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual co
re
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
Dual Quad Core vs 4 Dual Core Performance
We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> > physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> > Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> >
> > Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> > performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips. Am
I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
ThanksRegarding to the licensing, you pay for license for each physical CPU
socket. You don't need separate licenses for each core.
--
Ekrem Önsoy
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||Dear Hassan,
Your reasoning appears to be correct. You want to cram as many cores/cpu
power per socket if you are going with a per processor based licensing
scheme. A quad core or better CPU is what you would want to fully exploit
SQL Server licensing!
Regards,
James Simpson
Straightway Technologies Inc.|||At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
subsystem bolted up to the server.
--
Kevin G. Boles
TheSQLGuru
Indicium Resources, Inc.
kgboles a earthlink dt net
"Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> Thanks
>
>|||If you are saying that four dual-core sockets would give you better
performance than two quad-core sockets, I doubt it. I understand your
reasoning. But the technology progres is such that you generally get better
overall system configurations with newer processors. In other words, you may
find quad-core-socket servers come with better chipsets and PCI-E slots, and
so on.
Linchi
"TheSQLGuru" wrote:
> At the high-end of the performance spectrum you should get better
> performance (especially for large-data-volume queries) with a quad dual core
> arrangement. This does assume that you have sufficiently capable I/O
> subsystem bolted up to the server.
> --
> Kevin G. Boles
> TheSQLGuru
> Indicium Resources, Inc.
> kgboles a earthlink dt net
>
> "Hassan" <hassan@.test.com> wrote in message
> news:uIGZQDrRIHA.3676@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > We like the idea of Dual Quad Cores 'cos now you can license SQL for 2
> > physical sockets as opposed to 4 if we were going with 4 dual core chips.
> > Am I right there from a licnensing perspective ?
> >
> > Also what other differences should I be aware of especially from a
> > performance standpoint ? I would think they should both be similar..
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Dual Quad Core - CPU settings?
I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
mode.
Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
should consider upgrading that as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com...
>I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
> should consider upgrading that as well.
Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
believed it would help.
I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
to change the vendors code.
In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
the one CPU)...
What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
I would start with 4 or maybe even 2. When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
compatibility or not. PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
offer.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176da90b52cdb30989a7f@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
>> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and
>> the
>> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
>> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
>> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
>> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so
>> you
>> should consider upgrading that as well.
> Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
> moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
> believed it would help.
> I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
> because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
> didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
> So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
> where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
> to change the vendors code.
> In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
> system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
> using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
> Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
> wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
> cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
> the one CPU)...
> What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
> compatibility or not.
Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
> offer.
Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
the time.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
not reporting any increase yet.
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
Moving Users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller.
You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
want to limit it even more?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176ed223bb957aa989a83@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
>> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than
>> max.
>> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
> I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
>> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
>> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
>> compatibility or not.
> Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
> massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
> have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
> we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
>> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
>> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS
>> can
>> offer.
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
> the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
> being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
> have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
> the time.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
> Moving Users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
> Passwords Between SQL Servers
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
> Restore
> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
> Errors After Restoring Dump
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> > it's a AD controller.
> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
> want to limit it even more?
Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
something).
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
Some motherboards or chipsets will not use all 4GB as you would expect. They
simply can't address 4GB or they will hide some of the memory to be used for
specific memory calls such as onboard video etc. I suspect that is what you
are seeing here and in reality you are using all the available memory. You
are most likely paging to disk a lot as well. I would find out what else
other than SQL Server is using the memory and see if you can address that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176fd277dd6df39989a88@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
>> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but
>> I
>> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
>> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
>> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
>> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
>> Moving Users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
>> Passwords Between SQL Servers
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
>> Restore
>> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
>> users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
>> Errors After Restoring Dump
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
>> Issues
>> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
>> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I
>> > could
>> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
>> > it's a AD controller.
>> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
>> want to limit it even more?
> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
> I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
> to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
> that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
> know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
> something).
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com>,
void@.nowhere.lan says...
> I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
Well, it's been a full day and I've found that changing the setting from
5 to 3 made all the difference in the world. So, a crappy coded Proc
(that I have no control over), caused massive blocking and now, it's
fine again.
I should point out that a typical back of this server took 6+ hours
normally, now it takes under 3 hours. Users have found a little
improvement in performance (DB App), but the server is no longer showing
a load and all functions are responsive.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
resolved blocking.
Linchi
"Leythos" wrote:
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>|||In article <E7A06FE9-A2D7-433F-9DC4-9AF34EA25F2B@.microsoft.com>,
LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
> consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
> not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
> resolved blocking.
The same 600+ updates now don't consume CPU time and don't cause
blocking that I can see (at least not during production periods where it
was causing blocking).
So, it's just looking good now.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
parallelism.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176f66415ad1f61989a85@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
> parallelism.
Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
app.
Thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2179ea0474b0e377989ac3@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I
>> have
>> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
>> parallelism.
> Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
> changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
> app.
> Thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
hint when the option is specified.
I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
love to see it - thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
level but that is not what you want.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217ac0fd1c33cfbc989ad6@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
>> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
>> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
> I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
> hint when the option is specified.
> I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
> the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
> If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
> having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
> love to see it - thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
> level but that is not what you want.
Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
in those areas. I will check again.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Just a small point, the hint is MAXDOP but the configuration setting
is called "max degree of parallelism". If type that into the SQL
Server 2000 Books On Line index you will find more information.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:21:49 -0400, Leythos <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote:
>In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
>sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
>> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
>> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
>> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
>> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
>> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
>> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
>> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
>> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
>> level but that is not what you want.
>Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
>in those areas. I will check again.
SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
mode.
Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
should consider upgrading that as well.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com...
>I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and the
> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so you
> should consider upgrading that as well.
Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
believed it would help.
I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
to change the vendors code.
In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
the one CPU)...
What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
I would start with 4 or maybe even 2. When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
compatibility or not. PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
offer.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176da90b52cdb30989a7f@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <OH#AjM1CIHA.1168@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You really seem to have underpowered the system when it comes to memory
>> compared to CPU's. SQL 2000 Std edition can only use 2GB of memory and
>> the
>> server only has 4GB total anyway. The server is obviously being used for
>> more than SQL if 3.2GB is being used. If you want more memory you need to
>> move to either Enterprise Edition of SQL Server or upgrade to 2005 Std. I
>> don't recall what Win2003 Std supports but I believe it is only 4GB so
>> you
>> should consider upgrading that as well.
> Yea, I'm stuck - the database app vendor suggested a single CPU, and we
> moved from a Dual Xeon 2Ghz machine to this Dual Quad Core system and
> believed it would help.
> I bought Sql 2005 and CPU licenses and then downgraded to SQL 2000
> because the app didn't convert to 2005 (tried to do a restore and it
> didn't go well - schema security screwed it).
> So, I'm stuck with bad stored proc's and block each other, which is
> where I'm sure the real issue lies, but I don't have rights/permission
> to change the vendors code.
> In the old days there was speculation that Hyper Threading cause the
> system to run slower, but, in testing I was seeing about 30% increase
> using HT enabled under Xeon CPU's on a quality server. So, I've got Dual
> Quad Core CPU's now, and I don't have the option to play - so I was
> wondering if I should be only using some cores or just the second CPU's
> cores (instead of all 0-7 cores, use cores 4-7 so that I'm hitting just
> the one CPU)...
> What about AWE/PAE modes on Win 2003 Std with SQL 2000 Std?
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than max.
> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
> compatibility or not.
Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS can
> offer.
Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
the time.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
not reporting any increase yet.
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
Moving Users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
Passwords Between SQL Servers
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
Restore
http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
Errors After Restoring Dump
http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller.
You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
want to limit it even more?
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176ed223bb957aa989a83@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <egVTKn2CIHA.1208@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> You should not have an issue with allowing SQL Server to use all the
>> available cores. But make sure to set the MAXDOP to something less than
>> max.
>> I would start with 4 or maybe even 2.
> I hate to sound ignorant, but MAXDOP?
>> When you upgraded to 2005 did you try
>> the db in 80 compatibility mode? That can make a difference in app
>> compatibility or not.
> Yes, all DB were in 80 mode, but, the dang schema permissions cause
> massive problems. The same Vendors app installed native on 2005 didn't
> have a problem and I've done a few of them that work fine, but the ones
> we've moved from 2000 to 2005 all have schema permission problems.
>> PAE is ignored on Win2003 Std and SQL2000 Std will
>> only ever use 2GB regardless of the OS. SQL2005 will use all that the OS
>> can
>> offer.
> Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> it's a AD controller. I can't believe that it needs more than 1GB for
> the store when all of the blocking is based on a single sproc that is
> being called 600+ times by 4 users, it's an update of some type, but I
> have not looked directly at their code, just the blocking showing all
> the time.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but I
> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
> Moving Users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
> Passwords Between SQL Servers
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
> Restore
> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to users
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
> Errors After Restoring Dump
> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission Issues
> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I could
> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
> > it's a AD controller.
> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
> want to limit it even more?
Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
something).
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
Some motherboards or chipsets will not use all 4GB as you would expect. They
simply can't address 4GB or they will hide some of the memory to be used for
specific memory calls such as onboard video etc. I suspect that is what you
are seeing here and in reality you are using all the available memory. You
are most likely paging to disk a lot as well. I would find out what else
other than SQL Server is using the memory and see if you can address that.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176fd277dd6df39989a88@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#M0PNZ3CIHA.4584@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP stands for MAX Degree of Parallelism. Please refer to BooksOnLine
>> for more details. I don't know what schema permission issues you had but
>> I
>> am willing to bet they were minor and had to do with the fact the logins,
>> users and schemas has mismatches. If it works from scratch it should work
>> with an upgrade. Have a look at these to see if they help:
>> http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/cBunch/movingyouruserswiththeirdatabases.asp
>> Moving Users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=246133 How To Transfer Logins and
>> Passwords Between SQL Servers
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=298897 Mapping Logins & SIDs after a
>> Restore
>> http://www.dbmaint.com/SyncSqlLogins.asp Utility to map logins to
>> users
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=168001 User Logon and/or Permission
>> Errors After Restoring Dump
>> http://support.microsoft.com/?id=240872 How to Resolve Permission
>> Issues
>> When a Database Is Moved Between SQL Servers
>> > Yea, that's what I thought, SQL Store is using 1.75GB currently. I
>> > could
>> > try limiting it to 1.4GB to free up memory for the server itself, since
>> > it's a AD controller.
>> You have at least 4GB right? SQL will only use 2GB max so why would you
>> want to limit it even more?
> Yes, IBM 3800 series with 4GB RAM and 4 additional used as fail-over
> RAM. I've never seen the RAM in use exceed 3.3GB, in fact I've never
> seen a Windows Std server use more than 3.3GB on anything.
> I was worried about the 2GB limit for apps and wondered if allowing it
> to run (auto) at 1.78GB left enough for the OS and server functions -
> that's why I limited it to 1.4GB - this was a shotgun move (sorry, I
> know it's not professional, but sometimes you have to just try
> something).
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <MPG.21768b1c15ad1052989a7d@.adfree.Usenet.com>,
void@.nowhere.lan says...
> I have a IBM Dual Quad Core CPU system running SQL 2000 and all
> SP/Updates. I'm seeing a log of blocking because of a vendors app that I
> have no control over, causes the CPU Cores to run around 50% during the
> extended periods of blocking. System is using 3.2GB of the 4GB (Windows
> 2003 Std, SQL 2000 Std CPU Licenses) and SQL is set to not use CPU Core
> 0 (actually, it was set to use all cores, but it has not made any
> performance difference by not allowing access to Core 0 - this is a
> Domain Controller and normally shows 3% load across all cores).
> Should I limit the access to Cores to just 4-7 (second CPU) or just Core
> 0/4 and not the others, or should I just allow all cores?
> Also, with Win 2003 Std and SQL 2000 Std (CPU licenses), should I be
> using AWE or PAE modes? I'm currently setup for the default startup
> mode.
> Thanks - sorry for the ramble, been a long night.
Well, it's been a full day and I've found that changing the setting from
5 to 3 made all the difference in the world. So, a crappy coded Proc
(that I have no control over), caused massive blocking and now, it's
fine again.
I should point out that a typical back of this server took 6+ hours
normally, now it takes under 3 hours. Users have found a little
improvement in performance (DB App), but the server is no longer showing
a load and all functions are responsive.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
resolved blocking.
Linchi
"Leythos" wrote:
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
>|||In article <E7A06FE9-A2D7-433F-9DC4-9AF34EA25F2B@.microsoft.com>,
LinchiShea@.discussions.microsoft.com says...
> Something doesn't connect. Typically, if you see massive blocking, your CPU
> consunption should go down because these processes are being blocked and are
> not doing anything. And I'd expect to see CPU usage go up when you have
> resolved blocking.
The same 600+ updates now don't consume CPU time and don't cause
blocking that I can see (at least not during production periods where it
was causing blocking).
So, it's just looking good now.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
parallelism.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2176f66415ad1f61989a85@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> As a note, I've set the Max Query Plan option to 3 from 5 and set max
> memory from FULL to 1.4GB and CPU load has gone from 50% to 17% and
> users are not reporting any loss of application performance - they are
> not reporting any increase yet.
>
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I have
> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
> parallelism.
Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
app.
Thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2179ea0474b0e377989ac3@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <ObHjn3NDIHA.4360@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> What setting are you referring to that you changed from 5 to 3? As I
>> have
>> said all along I think you have issues with MAXDOP and need to reduce the
>> parallelism.
> Yea, this is SQL 2000, and the max query plan option was set for 5,
> changing it to 3 cleaned up the lack of proper coding from the vendors
> app.
> Thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
hint when the option is specified.
I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
love to see it - thanks.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
level but that is not what you want.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors
"Leythos" <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.217ac0fd1c33cfbc989ad6@.adfree.Usenet.com...
> In article <#nSn#ZbDIHA.5980@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
> sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> I don't have a 2000 instance to look at right now but I don't remember a
>> setting called that. Are you referring to the parallel query plan cost
>> option? If so then again I suggest you change the MAXDOP instead.
> I've looked all around and only see MAXDOP in SQL 2005 and as a query
> hint when the option is specified.
> I do not have permission to edit any of the vendors code, so I've used
> the Memory/CPU settings tabs to adjust what can be run in parallel.
> If you have a setting, in SQL 2000, that applies to ALL proc's without
> having to edit any of the code, just changing SQL settings, then I would
> love to see it - thanks.
> --
> Leythos
> - Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
> - Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
> drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
> spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
> level but that is not what you want.
Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
in those areas. I will check again.
--
Leythos
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@.rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)|||Just a small point, the hint is MAXDOP but the configuration setting
is called "max degree of parallelism". If type that into the SQL
Server 2000 Books On Line index you will find more information.
Roy Harvey
Beacon Falls, CT
On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:21:49 -0400, Leythos <void@.nowhere.lan> wrote:
>In article <OxdtLgcDIHA.4752@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,
>sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com says...
>> MAXDOP is not a SQL2005 specific setting. It is there in 2000 as well. Again
>> I don't have an instance of 2000 so I am going from memory here but if you
>> right click on the server in EM and choose properties there should be a
>> Processor tab. On that tab there should be a dropdown box (I believe) to
>> choose the maximum number of processors that can be used in parallel. It
>> will be set to 0 by default. You can also change or see this in
>> sp_configure. It is the "max degree of parallelism" option. You can see more
>> details in BOL under max degree of parallelism. If you set it here it
>> affects everything on the server. You can also specify a hint at a statement
>> level but that is not what you want.
>Thanks for your time - somehow I seem to have missed this when looking
>in those areas. I will check again.
Friday, March 9, 2012
Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU
Hello everyone,
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
Nick
You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.
|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.c om> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
Nick
You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4?
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4?
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>
|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.
|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.c om> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU
Hello everyone,
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
NickYou might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4'
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4'
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual c
pu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" < Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)
hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
NickYou might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4'
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4'
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual c
pu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" < Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)
hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
Dual CPU w/Dual Core or single core with dual CPU
Hello everyone,
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
NickYou might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4'
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
>> have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4'
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
>> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
>> bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium.
>> We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core
>> 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server?
>> Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
> one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:43C5801B.189260D2@.dontemailme.com...
> Nick wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu
>> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
>> 2mb cache.
>
> you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
> give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
> benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
> performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
> hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
> few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
> 2 slower processors.|||Ok then what will your work load be like? If you have lots of concurrent
activity or lots of activity that can benefit from parallel processing the 4
procs (two dual cores) would most likely be better than the 2 single core
faster procs. But if it is only one or two concurrent users at a time and
they don't benefit much from parallel operations the faster procs may suite
you better.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uVHAb23FGHA.312@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> HI Guys,
> to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both
> Dual Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular
> Dual CPU setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
> Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
> My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
> changed that to a 3.8.....
> I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
> application will really take advantage of dual core.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs
>> or one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
>> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote
>> in message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two
>> 3.4GHZ ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower
>> one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
2mb cache.
Thanks,
NickYou might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64 bit
edition on them.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Thanks for the reply.
I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still wondering
if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core /dual cpu 3.4'
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
> bit edition on them.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
>> have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>|||Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual processors
there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under your exact
conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ processors (dual core
or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ ones. All other things
equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the reply.
> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
> /dual cpu 3.4'
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get 2
>> dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005 64
>> bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium.
>> We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core
>> 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server?
>> Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>|||Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
Nick
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Are you queries compute intensive? Is your CPU a bottleneck? There is no
way to answer this as a generic configuration. It all depends upon what you
are doing on the system. Just because a processor is dual core doesn't mean
you get the equivalent of 2 processors. You get more processing capacity on
a single die, but it doesn't double.
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
> cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines
> have 2mb cache.
> Thanks,
> Nick
>|||Nick wrote:
> Hello everyone,
> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual cpu
> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
> 2mb cache.
you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
2 slower processors.|||Nick,
I am a little confused now as to what you originally meant.
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL
Is the 2.8 two dual core procs or a single dual core proc? If it is indeed
two dual cores then you basically have 4 processors vs the two of the
3.4GHZ. So that would probably be my choice if you have multiple concurrent
users or lots of parallel queries.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:OCIDZRtFGHA.1396@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the replies. I am leaning towards the 3.4 single cores.
> Nick
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2 cache,
no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2 cache, and
up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In addition each
of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting in 8 Virtual
CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will produce, thus handling
twice as many threads simultaneously as the 3.4Ghz - and after all, the
speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly faster than the first PIII's.
--
Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single
>> core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for SQL
>> server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>|||Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded, resulting
> in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz will
> produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only slightly
> faster than the first PIII's.
> --
> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
> Google is your friend!
> http://www.google.com
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test under
>> your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably get
>> 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run SQL2005
>> 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best for
>> SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs or
> one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two 3.4GHZ
>> ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>> Thanks,
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>>
>|||HI Guys,
to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both Dual
Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular Dual CPU
setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
changed that to a 3.8.....
I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
application will really take advantage of dual core.
"ch" <ch@.dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:43C5801B.189260D2@.dontemailme.com...
> Nick wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual 1.2ghz
>> Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the Itanium. We are
>> looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a single core 3.4ghz dual
>> cpu
>> machine. Which should perform the best for SQL server? Both machines have
>> 2mb cache.
>
> you need to look at your machines usage. the 2 slower dual cores will
> give you 4 processors instead of 2. the 2 additional processors might
> benefit your system or, as in my case, could seriously degrade
> performance of parallel queries. i went from dual cpu to dual
> hyperthreaded cpu's and had to limit queries to 1 processor because a
> few parallel queries ran much slower on the 4 faster processors than the
> 2 slower processors.|||Ok then what will your work load be like? If you have lots of concurrent
activity or lots of activity that can benefit from parallel processing the 4
procs (two dual cores) would most likely be better than the 2 single core
faster procs. But if it is only one or two concurrent users at a time and
they don't benefit much from parallel operations the faster procs may suite
you better.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uVHAb23FGHA.312@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> HI Guys,
> to clarify, I am looking at either a machine running 2.8ghz, with both
> Dual Core as well as Dual CPU (so 2 Dual CORE cpu's) OR just a regular
> Dual CPU setup with 3.8ghz XEONS
> Both systems have 800mhz frontside bus and 2MB of cache.
> My original message said I was looking at a 3.4ghz machine but I have now
> changed that to a 3.8.....
> I have read conflicting stories of which is better. I do not think my
> application will really take advantage of dual core.
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23ucQN9yFGHA.3532@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Well I am assuming it's apples to apples. Either two single core procs
>> or one dual core proc and he stated the cache was the same. But after
>> re-reading it I am not sure what he said now.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Admiral Q" <Star_Fleet_Admiral_Q(No_Spam)@.(Spam_Not)hotmail.com> wrote
>> in message news:uLE5EZxFGHA.3064@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> You may be surprised, as the Intel 2.8Ghz Dual Cores have 2x2MB of L2
>> cache, no L3 cache and 800Mhz FSB, where the 3.4Ghz have only 1MB of L2
>> cache, and up to 8MB L3 cache, it has only a maximum of 667Mhz FSB. In
>> addition each of the Dual Core processors can be hyper-threaded,
>> resulting in 8 Virtual CPU's versus only the 4 Virtual CPU's the 3.4Ghz
>> will produce, thus handling twice as many threads simultaneously as the
>> 3.4Ghz - and after all, the speed difference is only 600Mhz, only
>> slightly faster than the first PIII's.
>> --
>> Star Fleet Admiral Q @. your service!
>> Google is your friend!
>> http://www.google.com
>>
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:uXO8yQsFGHA.2012@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Even though the dual cores are almost the same as two individual
>> processors there is a difference. Of coarse you would have to test
>> under your exact conditions but I would be very surprised if the 2.8GHZ
>> processors (dual core or dual procs) would perform as well as two
>> 3.4GHZ ones. All other things equal a faster proc will beat a slower
>> one.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:e3ORd7rFGHA.3684@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> Thanks for the reply.
>> I have heard great things about the dual core AMD, but I am still
>> wondering if the 2.8 dual core/dual cpu will outperform a single core
>> /dual cpu 3.4'
>> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23OR3QsrFGHA.4036@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> You might want to look at the dual core AMD boxes. You can probably
>> get 2 dual core CPU's for less than what you think and you can run
>> SQL2005 64 bit edition on them.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Nick" <nsocha@.prodigy.net> wrote in message
>> news:uMnG3ckFGHA.2064@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>>> Hello everyone,
>>> I am about to replace my current SQL server that is running a dual
>>> 1.2ghz Itanium 64 cpu. We just hate the lack of support for the
>>> Itanium. We are looking at a 2.8 dual core/dual cpu machine or a
>>> single core 3.4ghz dual cpu machine. Which should perform the best
>>> for SQL server? Both machines have 2mb cache.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
dual core processor conflict graphics card
ok i have intel dual core i have a conflict only in playing a game black hawk down it gives me a run stop error. locks up and has to be restarted. microsoft gave me a fix but when i do the fix it causes me to get a system dump error on the game. i can update my web site do anything else let daughter play her games or do her school work and nothing happens. i was told i needed to set up the dual core so that my programs dont conflict i am a moron when it comes to computers is there a fix for this or i am i just going to have to go back to single core processor for now thanks
Your thread is in the wrong forum.
However, you may want to try looking into the following, you can specify that a process runs on just one processor, so your game could be run on one core of the processor.
I'm not sure on how you would do this, probably through task manager. Try posting it on the black hawk down forums on the software vendors site or phoning the games support line.
Dual Core Processor
We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> > We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> > edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> > with
> > 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> > SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carlos
>
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> > We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> > edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> > with
> > 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> > SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Carlos
>
Dual Core Processor
We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosWe are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
Carlos
How about a Quad processor?
First; it will reduce the load on the mother board's Memory Bus. AMD's data-sheet on 4-core mention that "competitors" (Intel) behave more like two duo-core processors on the same backplane, but I'm not sure how far that goes but it implies that performance wise (at the hardware layer) that Intel 2-Core is similar to two 2-Core processors.
Second; Microsoft only counts it as a single CPU. So; anything licensed (from MS) by CPU will save substantially on licensing fees.
I don't have the link, so here's the quote:
SQL Server Multicore Licensing Policy
Published: August 1, 2005
Multicore processors, which consist of multiple processing execution
units or "cores" on one chip, promise to boost computing power, allowing
servers, workstations, and PCs to perform more functions simultaneously.
By the end of 2006, Intel expects more than 80 percent of its server
products to be shipping with multicore technology. Because most
server-side software is licensed "per processor," it has caused
confusion among some software vendors regarding whether to charge their
customers "per processor" or "per core."
Microsoft has been driving thought leadership in this area by charging
the same amount per processor, regardless of how many cores are in the
processor. Microsoft was the first database vendor to make this
announcement, in October of 2004, and continues to be the only vendor to
date that has taken this position. This strategy is based on the belief
that multicore processors are a natural extension of Moore's Law (that
the number of transistors on a chip doubles about every one to two
years), and that the benefits should be passed on directly to customers.
For example, if you are using SQL Server Enterprise Edition on a
four-processor server with dual-core processors, using all eight cores
(two cores x four processors), you will require only four processor
licenses. That can mean substantial savings for customers of Microsoft
compared to its competitors.
Thanks,
CarlosWe are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
Carlos
How about a Quad processor?
First; it will reduce the load on the mother board's Memory Bus. AMD's data-sheet on 4-core mention that "competitors" (Intel) behave more like two duo-core processors on the same backplane, but I'm not sure how far that goes but it implies that performance wise (at the hardware layer) that Intel 2-Core is similar to two 2-Core processors.
Second; Microsoft only counts it as a single CPU. So; anything licensed (from MS) by CPU will save substantially on licensing fees.
I don't have the link, so here's the quote:
SQL Server Multicore Licensing Policy
Published: August 1, 2005
Multicore processors, which consist of multiple processing execution
units or "cores" on one chip, promise to boost computing power, allowing
servers, workstations, and PCs to perform more functions simultaneously.
By the end of 2006, Intel expects more than 80 percent of its server
products to be shipping with multicore technology. Because most
server-side software is licensed "per processor," it has caused
confusion among some software vendors regarding whether to charge their
customers "per processor" or "per core."
Microsoft has been driving thought leadership in this area by charging
the same amount per processor, regardless of how many cores are in the
processor. Microsoft was the first database vendor to make this
announcement, in October of 2004, and continues to be the only vendor to
date that has taken this position. This strategy is based on the belief
that multicore processors are a natural extension of Moore's Law (that
the number of transistors on a chip doubles about every one to two
years), and that the benefits should be passed on directly to customers.
For example, if you are using SQL Server Enterprise Edition on a
four-processor server with dual-core processors, using all eight cores
(two cores x four processors), you will require only four processor
licenses. That can mean substantial savings for customers of Microsoft
compared to its competitors.
Dual Core Processor
We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
Carlos
Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos
|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
Carlos
Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos
|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>
Dual Core Processor
We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leverag
ed
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actuall
y
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors wort
h
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you on
ly
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>
edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server with
2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
Thanks,
CarlosDual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leveraged
very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actually
behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors worth
of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you only
need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
not just get ONE of those?
Adam Machanic
SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
"Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
> We are in process of moving to 64 bit HP servers with sql2005 standard
> edition. We were just wondering which is better option, to get a server
> with
> 2 dual core processor or to get a srver with just 4 processor? How does
> SQL2005 handle the hypertheading of dual processor?
> Thanks,
> Carlos|||Thanks Adam, that makes sense
"Adam Machanic" wrote:
> Dual core processors and hyperthreaded processors are totally different
> things. Hyperthreading actually adds a "virtual" core, and is not leverag
ed
> very well by SQL Server. Multicore processors, on the other hand, actuall
y
> behave like multiple processors -- two cores gives you two processors wort
h
> of power. The great thing in terms of SQL Server licensing is that you on
ly
> need to pay per socket, rather than per core. So buying two dual core
> processors will save you a substantial amount of money over buying four
> single-core processors. And now you can buy quad-core processors, so why
> not just get ONE of those?
>
> --
> Adam Machanic
> SQL Server MVP - http://sqlblog.com
> Author, "Expert SQL Server 2005 Development"
> http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10220
>
> "Carlos" <carlosarango@.SQLserver.com> wrote in message
> news:EB6E4323-8944-476E-A01B-D85B158BBB3F@.microsoft.com...
>
Dual core or hyperthreading enabled
How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
Thanks
It's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
Thanks
It's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
Dual core or hyperthreading enabled
How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
ThanksIt's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
ThanksIt's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
Dual core or hyperthreading enabled
How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
ThanksIt's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
enabled ?
So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
can do so by running a command ?
ThanksIt's most likely dual core. Check the CPU model number. If it's the Opteron
8000 series, it's dual core.
Linchi
"Hassan" wrote:
> How can I find out if its a dual core box or a box with hyperthreading
> enabled ?
> So I know its a 4 physical processor box as its a DL 585 G2. But I see 8
> CPUs in Task manager. Now is it hyperthreading enabled or is it dual core
> that shows it as 8 procs ? Is there an easy way to find that using SQL ? I
> am using SQL 2005. Even if not through SQL, what are the other ways that I
> can do so by running a command ?
> Thanks
>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)