DTS to .net: xeon

Showing posts with label xeon. 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, 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
>

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
>

dual-core server

Dual Xeon or Dual P4 for SQL Server?

I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server.
Right now I can only use a single box for both.

I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some
parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU.

My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB
or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@. ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu.
If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for
sql server and the other for everything else?

John DalbergOn Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:14:17 -0800, John Dalberg wrote:

> I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server.
> Right now I can only use a single box for both.
> I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some
> parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU.
> My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB
> or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@. ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu.
> If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for
> sql server and the other for everything else?
> John Dalberg

I forgot to mention also what about AMD's Athlon since I can get faster
Athlons for the same amount of money for Intel CPUs? Are dual Athlon
motherboards a good choice for SQL Server?

John Dalberg|||In article <u1ekecr53aij.1ek79hzro64q4$.dlg@.40tude.net>,
john_dd@.hotmail.com says...
> I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server.
> Right now I can only use a single box for both.
> I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some
> parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU.
> My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB
> or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@. ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu.
> If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for
> sql server and the other for everything else?

John, you can't use Dual P4's any more, Intel fixed that after the P3.

If you want to build a cheap but fast SQL Server, assuming SQL 2000 or
higher, tape a look at the ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard. I have about
30 of these running the following:

ASUS PC-DL Deluxe
Dua Xeon 2.4G (or faster) (make sure they are same lot/part)
2GB or 4GB of RAM (does not require ECC RAM)
It has onboard SATA and IDE, you can use a total of 6 drives between the
connectors without a problem.

The 2GB systems with Dual 250GB SATA drives, video, case, CD-ROM, etc...
are under $1900 each.

If you want a big box, like this:

PC-DL Deluxe
Dual Xeon 2.8ghz
2 x 80GB IDE (OS = 12GB, LOGS = 60GB)
6 x 250GB IDE (for DATA files)
Promise SX6000 Hardware IDE RAID Controller (hot swap IDE drives)
cheap video
Chenbro Server case with Dual 550W PSU's
and Windows 2003 Standard Server 5cal

This box runs about $4000

I run SQL 2000 on Dual P3 and Dual/Quad Xeon without any problems.

If you get a P4, get one that does Hyper-Threading, and use Server 2003
so that you get the most benefit from it.

As for Athlon, faster is a matter of what task is being performed and
how stable you want the system to be. When it comes to business systems
I use Intel CPU's only, but that's a personal preference and has never
cost me a job or stability.

--
--
spamfree999@.rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)|||John Dalberg (john_dd@.hotmail.com) writes:
> I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server.
> Right now I can only use a single box for both.
> I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with
> some parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a
> single CPU.
> My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB
> or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@. ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu.
> If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for
> sql server and the other for everything else?

Machine configurations is not my best game, but if you are going to have
both SQL Server and web server on the same box, I would definitely go for
two CPUs. (Or at least one CPU that is hyper-threaded.)

As for SQL Server and parallel queries, yes, there is a potential problem.
I have seen more than once, SQL Server being too optimistic about parallel
query plans, and taken a plan with poor performance. What we usually do,
when we run into these queries is to add the query hint OPTION (MAXDOP 1)
which turns of parallellism for that query.

A more definitive cure is to set the configuration option "Max degress of
parllellism" to 1. Note that this is not the same as confining SQL Server
to one CPU only, but that one single query can only take one processor. Two
users executing different queries can still get one CPU each.

Giving SQL Server only one CPU *may* be a good idea, if you expect the
web server and the rest to need substantial amount of resources. But you
could also get the effect that one processor is mainly idle, while the
other is working around the clock.

So my recommendation would be set "Max degrees of Parallelism" to 1 (Or
to 2, if you have two hyper-threaded CPUs), but let SQL Server use both
CPUs.

Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for some
editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this with
Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp|||In article <Xns95A8BE037B8EAYazorman@.127.0.0.1>, esquel@.sommarskog.se
says...
> Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for some
> editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this with
> Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game.

I was told by the MS People in the Great Lakes MS Office that HT CPU's
still count as 1 CPU for licensing.

One other thing, unless he's using SBS, I was also told that a Web
Server accessing a MS SQL Database, requires a CPU License on the
Database server for each physical CPU the SQL server is permitted to
use.

I have always licensed our SQL Servers in CPU mode when being accessed
by a web server using anonymous connections to the web server.

--
--
spamfree999@.rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)|||Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> John Dalberg (john_dd@.hotmail.com) writes:
> > I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web
server.
> > Right now I can only use a single box for both.
> > bob.mckenna@.rbc.com
> > I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems
with
> > some parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use
a
> > single CPU.
> > My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon
533FSB
> > or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@. ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu.
> > If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu
used for
> > sql server and the other for everything else?
> Machine configurations is not my best game, but if you are going to
have
> both SQL Server and web server on the same box, I would definitely go
for
> two CPUs. (Or at least one CPU that is hyper-threaded.)
> As for SQL Server and parallel queries, yes, there is a potential
problem.
> I have seen more than once, SQL Server being too optimistic about
parallel
> query plans, and taken a plan with poor performance. What we usually
do,
> when we run into these queries is to add the query hint OPTION
(MAXDOP 1)
> which turns of parallellism for that query.
> A more definitive cure is to set the configuration option "Max
degress of
> parllellism" to 1. Note that this is not the same as confining SQL
Server
> to one CPU only, but that one single query can only take one
processor. Two
> users executing different queries can still get one CPU each.
> Giving SQL Server only one CPU *may* be a good idea, if you expect
the
> web server and the rest to need substantial amount of resources. But
you
> could also get the effect that one processor is mainly idle, while
the
> other is working around the clock.
> So my recommendation would be set "Max degrees of Parallelism" to 1
(Or
> to 2, if you have two hyper-threaded CPUs), but let SQL Server use
both
> CPUs.
>
> Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for
some
> editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this
with
> Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game.
> --
> Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
> Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Friday, March 9, 2012

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
Bob
SQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>
|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh
|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Dual processors?

One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
I'm not sure its that simple.
Any insight would be appreciated.
BobSQL will use the second processor, provided the OS accepts and uses it.
Whether that speeds up SQL depends on what resource is limiting SQL
performance. If the system was running over 80% CPU usage, he will likely
see some noticable speed improvement. As has been said before in this
forum, you first have to identify the performance limiting factor(s) I.E.
the bottlenecks, in your system before you can determine whether adding
resource X will make it faster. This applies whether X is memory, RAM, disk
capacity/speed, CPU speed/count, or network bandwidth.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote in message
news:OASJaP0BGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server
> 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging
> in a second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that
> machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
>|||On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:05:40 -0500, "Bob" <bdufour@.sgiims.com> wrote:
>One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql server 2000
>running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact of plugging in a
>second processor increase the speed of sql server standard on that machine?
>I'm not sure its that simple.
Did you say on the other thread that you are running Windows 2000?
Windows Server 2003 supports threads better and is probably better
overall for multiprocessor systems.
Josh|||Bob wrote:
> One of my customers just plugged in a second processor on a sql
> server 2000 running on a dell (dual Xeon at 2G). Does the simple fact
> of plugging in a second processor increase the speed of sql server
> standard on that machine? I'm not sure its that simple.
> Any insight would be appreciated.
> Bob
Not only should it increase speed, but it will require you puchase
another CPU license if you are using the CPU licensing model.
To be sure, check to make sure SQL Server is using both processors. You
can do this from the server properties in SQL EM.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com

Dual Processors Xeon Support

Dear SQL Server Users,
How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
Kind Regards
CharlesBy default, the installation chooses all the CPUs. You can change it to use
only 1 CPU later.
Gopi
"Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:67E77C3C-899A-47E9-AE60-EE98D32C48BC@.microsoft.com...
> Dear SQL Server Users,
> How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
> Kind Regards
> Charles|||a related question: if you have two instances and one dual cpu xeon,
can you set the processor affinity to use one processor per instance?
if so, does this buy you as much as setting the processor affinity for
two (separate) processors?
thanks,
arthur|||Hi Rgn,
Could you point me to further information on Sql Server for DUAL CPU
environment?
Kind Regards
Charles
"rgn" wrote:
> By default, the installation chooses all the CPUs. You can change it to use
> only 1 CPU later.
> Gopi
> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:67E77C3C-899A-47E9-AE60-EE98D32C48BC@.microsoft.com...
> > Dear SQL Server Users,
> >
> > How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Charles
>
>|||What kind of information? Standard edition or above will use multiple
processors by default. You don't have to do anything.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2594534E-DF3A-448A-98DA-5D8325AEBC0C@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Rgn,
> Could you point me to further information on Sql Server for DUAL CPU
> environment?
> Kind Regards
> Charles
> "rgn" wrote:
>> By default, the installation chooses all the CPUs. You can change it to
>> use
>> only 1 CPU later.
>> Gopi
>> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:67E77C3C-899A-47E9-AE60-EE98D32C48BC@.microsoft.com...
>> > Dear SQL Server Users,
>> >
>> > How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
>> >
>> > Kind Regards
>> > Charles
>>|||Arthur,
Check the Microsoft website for a whitepaper on HT processors. These were
first introduced on Xeon Server processors
and the OS (MicroSoft) does treat them as two logical CPUs even though it is
one Physical CPU.
Microsoft itself mentions that the performance gain is not that significant
(as of WIN2K/SQL2K) as the performance gain
is only about 30% when compared to two Physical CPUs and this is because
WIN2K/SQL2K is not designed to make
use of the Hyper Threading features.
Please check the Microsoft website. I cant recollect the URL as I had read
this 2 years before.
Gopi
"arthur" <alangham@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108394471.350245.286640@.f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>a related question: if you have two instances and one dual cpu xeon,
> can you set the processor affinity to use one processor per instance?
> if so, does this buy you as much as setting the processor affinity for
> two (separate) processors?
> thanks,
> arthur
>|||Hi Andrew
I'm looking for documentation on how to tune-up SQL Server Standard Edition
on Dual CPU Xeon.
Kind Regards
Charles
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> What kind of information? Standard edition or above will use multiple
> processors by default. You don't have to do anything.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2594534E-DF3A-448A-98DA-5D8325AEBC0C@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi Rgn,
> >
> > Could you point me to further information on Sql Server for DUAL CPU
> > environment?
> >
> > Kind Regards
> > Charles
> >
> > "rgn" wrote:
> >
> >> By default, the installation chooses all the CPUs. You can change it to
> >> use
> >> only 1 CPU later.
> >>
> >> Gopi
> >>
> >> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:67E77C3C-899A-47E9-AE60-EE98D32C48BC@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Dear SQL Server Users,
> >> >
> >> > How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
> >> >
> >> > Kind Regards
> >> > Charles
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>|||There isn't much regarding the dual cpu part. The tuning is mostly the same
as it pertains more to I/O and poor queries or schemas. Have a look at
these:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/administration/2000/perftuning.asp
Performance WP's
http://www.swynk.com/friends/vandenberg/perfmonitor.asp Perfmon counters
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/sql_server_performance_audit.asp
Hardware Performance CheckList
http://www.sql-server-performance.com/best_sql_server_performance_tips.asp
SQL 2000 Performance tuning tips
http://www.support.microsoft.com/?id=q224587 Troubleshooting App
Performance
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/adminsql/ad_perfmon_24u1.asp
Disk Monitoring
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B77F9EBF-ACD1-4D20-8AE6-72B80469BC62@.microsoft.com...
> Hi Andrew
> I'm looking for documentation on how to tune-up SQL Server Standard
> Edition
> on Dual CPU Xeon.
> Kind Regards
> Charles
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> What kind of information? Standard edition or above will use multiple
>> processors by default. You don't have to do anything.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:2594534E-DF3A-448A-98DA-5D8325AEBC0C@.microsoft.com...
>> > Hi Rgn,
>> >
>> > Could you point me to further information on Sql Server for DUAL CPU
>> > environment?
>> >
>> > Kind Regards
>> > Charles
>> >
>> > "rgn" wrote:
>> >
>> >> By default, the installation chooses all the CPUs. You can change it
>> >> to
>> >> use
>> >> only 1 CPU later.
>> >>
>> >> Gopi
>> >>
>> >> "Charles Tam" <CharlesTam@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:67E77C3C-899A-47E9-AE60-EE98D32C48BC@.microsoft.com...
>> >> > Dear SQL Server Users,
>> >> >
>> >> > How do I configure Sql Server 2000 to supports dual cpu (Xeon)?
>> >> >
>> >> > Kind Regards
>> >> > Charles
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>

Sunday, March 11, 2012

dual-core server

dual-core server

dual-core server

Dual Xeon or Dual P4 for SQL Server?

Dual processors?

Friday, March 9, 2012

Dual processors?

Dual processors?

Dual Processors Xeon Support

Dual Processors Xeon Support

Dual Processors Xeon Support

DTS to .net

Blog Archive

About Me