I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also slightly
faster than U320 SCSI.
I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
report?
Thanks, AndreI'm using a new AMD Opteron Dual core and I'm very happy with it.
I'm not using SAS drives.
its an "home made" server based on a Tyan motherboard for development usage:
1 dual core; 4Gb; 4 * SATA2 drives; SQL 2005 x64
I'm in a datawarehouse usage; not OLTP;
from some benchmarks; Opterons CPU are better then Xeon CPU for SQL Server
usage (look at the tpc.org site)
in my case, internal benchmark results are excellent
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>|||My personal choice would be DL585 dual-core which uses four-socket AMD
Opteron dual core. With pure SQL processor workloads (i.e. measuring pure
processing power with no storage I/Os), I see excellent scalability from
DL585 single core to DL585 dual core.
Linchi
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
Showing posts with label intel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label intel. Show all posts
Sunday, March 11, 2012
dual-core server
I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also slightly
faster than U320 SCSI.
I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
report?
Thanks, Andre
I'm using a new AMD Opteron Dual core and I'm very happy with it.
I'm not using SAS drives.
its an "home made" server based on a Tyan motherboard for development usage:
1 dual core; 4Gb; 4 * SATA2 drives; SQL 2005 x64
I'm in a datawarehouse usage; not OLTP;
from some benchmarks; Opterons CPU are better then Xeon CPU for SQL Server
usage (look at the tpc.org site)
in my case, internal benchmark results are excellent
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
|||My personal choice would be DL585 dual-core which uses four-socket AMD
Opteron dual core. With pure SQL processor workloads (i.e. measuring pure
processing power with no storage I/Os), I see excellent scalability from
DL585 single core to DL585 dual core.
Linchi
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also slightly
faster than U320 SCSI.
I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
report?
Thanks, Andre
I'm using a new AMD Opteron Dual core and I'm very happy with it.
I'm not using SAS drives.
its an "home made" server based on a Tyan motherboard for development usage:
1 dual core; 4Gb; 4 * SATA2 drives; SQL 2005 x64
I'm in a datawarehouse usage; not OLTP;
from some benchmarks; Opterons CPU are better then Xeon CPU for SQL Server
usage (look at the tpc.org site)
in my case, internal benchmark results are excellent
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
|||My personal choice would be DL585 dual-core which uses four-socket AMD
Opteron dual core. With pure SQL processor workloads (i.e. measuring pure
processing power with no storage I/Os), I see excellent scalability from
DL585 single core to DL585 dual core.
Linchi
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
dual-core server
I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also slightly
faster than U320 SCSI.
I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
report?
Thanks, AndreI'm using a new AMD Opteron Dual core and I'm very happy with it.
I'm not using SAS drives.
its an "home made" server based on a Tyan motherboard for development usage:
1 dual core; 4Gb; 4 * SATA2 drives; SQL 2005 x64
I'm in a datawarehouse usage; not OLTP;
from some benchmarks; Opterons CPU are better then Xeon CPU for SQL Server
usage (look at the tpc.org site)
in my case, internal benchmark results are excellent
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>|||My personal choice would be DL585 dual-core which uses four-socket AMD
Opteron dual core. With pure SQL processor workloads (i.e. measuring pure
processing power with no storage I/Os), I see excellent scalability from
DL585 single core to DL585 dual core.
Linchi
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also slightly
faster than U320 SCSI.
I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
report?
Thanks, AndreI'm using a new AMD Opteron Dual core and I'm very happy with it.
I'm not using SAS drives.
its an "home made" server based on a Tyan motherboard for development usage:
1 dual core; 4Gb; 4 * SATA2 drives; SQL 2005 x64
I'm in a datawarehouse usage; not OLTP;
from some benchmarks; Opterons CPU are better then Xeon CPU for SQL Server
usage (look at the tpc.org site)
in my case, internal benchmark results are excellent
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>|||My personal choice would be DL585 dual-core which uses four-socket AMD
Opteron dual core. With pure SQL processor workloads (i.e. measuring pure
processing power with no storage I/Os), I see excellent scalability from
DL585 single core to DL585 dual core.
Linchi
"Andre" <no@.spam.com> wrote in message
news:%23nghNNdLGHA.668@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> I'm looking at purchasing a new SQL Server - a Proliant of course. My
> research tells me that the new Intel dual-core Xeon is the way to go. I'm
> also hearing that the new SAS drives are the new standard, and also
> slightly faster than U320 SCSI.
> I'm wondering if anyone out there is using either the dual-core cpu or the
> SAS drives? If so, are you pleased with their performance? Any issues to
> report?
> Thanks, Andre
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
Dual Nics problems with SQL 2000 Cluster
HI,
I have two Dell Servers(For high avaiablity each machines have three intel gigabit Networkcards,one for heatbeat,two for clients link) with a disk array.I have installed Windows2003 and setup the Cluster,it's worked well,then i installed sql server 2000 E
E on them through many articles(I created tow sql ip address because i have two nics on each servers).When one node fail,the resource can shift to another node,the sql service is still available.Ok,but when one switch of the two seperate network is down,t
he sql service is nolonger avaliable,there is no use for another network cards on each node? Is there any articles for sql server's installation for nodes with three nics?
Another problem is that it take about 3 min for sql resource such as sql ip address,sql network name,sql server etc to transmit from one node to another,obviously it's too long,but i can't solve it.
I hope I 1can describe the phenomenas and i need your help,thank you!
You could use NIC Teaming on the 2 common NICs. The two teamed NICs combine to present a third "NIC" to the o/s with a common IP Address. SQL Server sees this common IP and doesn't complain when either of the physical NICs or switches fails. As your NI
C vendor if they support teaming (you'll need some Teaming software).
|||If I set two networks,one is 172.20.1.*and the other is 172.20.2.*,then which network should I config for the third "NIC" for all clients(they all have two NICs) to link?
|||When 2 NICs are teamed, only one is in use at any one time. You don't set the IP Address of each NIC you set the single IP address of the resulting teamed "NIC". So, you could have say NIC1 and NIC2 as your physical NICs. Then team them and call the re
sult "Public Network Connection" (or something more useful) which would have the IP address "172...". When you set up clustering, the public network will be "Public Network Connection" rather than NIC1 or NIC2. Make sure you set "Public Network Connect
ion" as the highest priority in the network advanced=>advanced settings list.
I have two Dell Servers(For high avaiablity each machines have three intel gigabit Networkcards,one for heatbeat,two for clients link) with a disk array.I have installed Windows2003 and setup the Cluster,it's worked well,then i installed sql server 2000 E
E on them through many articles(I created tow sql ip address because i have two nics on each servers).When one node fail,the resource can shift to another node,the sql service is still available.Ok,but when one switch of the two seperate network is down,t
he sql service is nolonger avaliable,there is no use for another network cards on each node? Is there any articles for sql server's installation for nodes with three nics?
Another problem is that it take about 3 min for sql resource such as sql ip address,sql network name,sql server etc to transmit from one node to another,obviously it's too long,but i can't solve it.
I hope I 1can describe the phenomenas and i need your help,thank you!
You could use NIC Teaming on the 2 common NICs. The two teamed NICs combine to present a third "NIC" to the o/s with a common IP Address. SQL Server sees this common IP and doesn't complain when either of the physical NICs or switches fails. As your NI
C vendor if they support teaming (you'll need some Teaming software).
|||If I set two networks,one is 172.20.1.*and the other is 172.20.2.*,then which network should I config for the third "NIC" for all clients(they all have two NICs) to link?
|||When 2 NICs are teamed, only one is in use at any one time. You don't set the IP Address of each NIC you set the single IP address of the resulting teamed "NIC". So, you could have say NIC1 and NIC2 as your physical NICs. Then team them and call the re
sult "Public Network Connection" (or something more useful) which would have the IP address "172...". When you set up clustering, the public network will be "Public Network Connection" rather than NIC1 or NIC2. Make sure you set "Public Network Connect
ion" as the highest priority in the network advanced=>advanced settings list.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)