While installing SQL2k I selected a 4 processor liscense aggreement. The server only has two. Does anybody know of a technial reason I should change it back? Can it be done without reinstalling?
Sidney Ives
Database Administrator
Sentara Healthcare
Hi all,
I am using sql server 7 i am having 4 processors in development server.
How i have to allocate those servers, means all 4 do i need to allocate to sql only or 3 processors.
same like 8 processors in production, how many processors to sql..
pls tell me the way..and how..
thank u all
esh
Specs: Dell 6350 Poweredge, 4 Xeon 500, 4GB Ram
SQL 7 Sp1.
At some point, my 4 processors began a cycle of Peaks and Valleys.
AFter stopping ALL processes using the SQL server the processors were still doing this Max, then none, Max, then none.
I think the oddest part of this is that all 4 processoers were Exactly the same Peaks/Valleys from my Workstation (perfmon).
Anone had their processors do this? HELP PLEASE.. .
We are looking at upgrading our SQL Server machine to multiple processors.
Will this act alone result in a performance improvment?
how to find out how many processors are licensed on the server?
=============================
http://www.sqlserverstudy.com
Is there a limit to the number of processors that can interact with SQL Server 7?
Also, what is the minimum amount of memory necessary to run SQL Server 7?
We have a 200MHz Pentium Pro based machine, with 128MB RAM running SQL Server 6.5. Because of performance issues, we are contemplating an upgrade to a dual 200MHz Pentium Pro processor with 256MB RAM. However, the vendor we are dealing with has suggested an upgrade to a single Pentiun II/333MHz first, and if this still causes problems, then to a dual P II/333MHz.
Does anyone have any suggestions from similar upgrades that they may have undergone?
We have 72MB allocated to SQL Server.
Hi,I have an application where I need to find out about the followinginformation regarding SQL server:Processors enabledi.Threads allocatedii.PriorityCan somebody throw some light on this. How are the processors relatedto the threads running and the priority is w.r.t. what?Thanks,Verve.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm spec up a new server At the minimum I'll specify a quad core cpu. What would be the best way to utilize the cores? Assign a core to specific processes (tempdb?) or let sql server figure out the best way to used the processors it finds?
View 1 Replies View RelatedCan I install SQL Server on a machine and use less than the # of processor on the machine. In a UNIX world, I'd call it LPARing with Oracle and AIX, and they only let me do this with Enterprise Edition. With Windows, I think the only way is using virtual machines and attaching processors to them? Do any vendors offering LPARing? Can I take any edition of SQL Server and subcapacity price so that I only pay for the processors I'm using?
What about SS Express? It only scheds to a single core - so could I put that on a larger machine?
Thanks!
Is it possible in SQL Server 2005 to limit the number of processors used? For cost reasons, we are consolidating servers and want to start running SQL Server 2005 on one of our dual-processor Win2K3 machines instead of the standalone machine it's currently running on. Because we have about 75 users, it's only cost effective to purchase a processor license (vs. a server license with CALs). But right now we only need and can only afford a single processor license, not two. So...
Is there any way in 2005 to limit the number of processors used so that we only need to purchase one processor license? I know in 2000 you could set this on the "Processor" tab of the "SQL Server Properties" dialog. In 2005, is this accomplished by unchecking the "Processor Affinity" and "I/O Affinity" checkboxes for processor #2 on the "Processors" page of the "Server Properties" dialog? If I uncheck these two options does that fully disable SQL Server 2005 from accessing the second processor in any way? From things I've read I can't tell if it restricts access to the second processor completely or if it just places some limitations on the ways it accesses the second processor.
Also, the licensing information for SQL Server 2005 leads me to believe that if you are going down the "processor licensing" route that you have to buy a processor license for every processor that the OS itself has access to and not just what processors SQL Server has access to. I thought I understood that in SQL Server 2000 the licensing information did allow you to buy a processor license just for each processor that SQL Server 2000 had access to, but has that changed for 2005?
Hope someone can provide some clarification on limiting processor access and the licensing implications for SQL Server 2005.
Thanks,
Scott
Hello,
Yesterday I was looking to the processor usage in the Task Manager of Windows NT when a script of mine was running. The script was an InfoPump Script; which is a tool from the DecisionBase suite from CA (was previously owned by Platinum). This script contains SQL statements that select data from several tables and stores the result into another table. The SQL code used for this looks fine to me.
The query was running on a Compaq Proliant 5500 with 4 500 Mhz Xeon processors, 1 GB RAM, NT Server 4, SP 5, RAID 5. The SQL Server is configured to use all resources and SQL has normal priority on NT.
When the select part was running al four processors were used for about 75% and when the store happens only 1 processor is used for 100%.
Why is the store not spread over all four processors? It only uses one processor and it seems to be a bottleneck.
Stef
Hi,Is there a reason why we have to pay more for licensing for a differentkind of processor?Why are we not charged for the Hyperthreading on some processors also.If Oracle is really conserned about the low end business market (smalland medium), then they should drop their attitude on Dual Coreprocessors.If they start charging as if it was a normal processor, and ask thenormal price, then they would get more of this market coming in.As long as Oracle keeps on having the attitude of charging more,because Intel or some other cpu vendor decided to mprove theirprocessors because of overheating problems, I will have the attitudethat I will keep on reoccomending alternatives for Orcle like Mysql /Postgre sql / Sybase, etc to the small/medium sector.Microsoft's pricing model on double core processors suddenly soundallot better.Oracle are shooting themselves in the foot! Or am I the only personfeeling this way?Shaun O'Reilly
View 2 Replies View RelatedWhen Standard Edition says it supports 4 processors, is this just the physical processor or do we have to factor in multiple cores?
If SE supports 4 physical quad-core processors, is it written to optimally utilize the quad-core technology or would I be better off using Enterprise Edition?
Dave
Hello all,
We've had a problem for a few months now that has completely stumped us. We are running a heavily cursored massive data manipulation process on a 32 bit SQL Server instance running on a virtual machine, running ontop of VMWare, with the following specs
Processors: 2x2674MHz processors
Memory: 4GB
RAID 10 disk config
When we run our process on this machine, in total it runs in 30 hours.
When this process is run on another 32 bit server with the following specs
Processors: 8x3658MHx processors
Memory: 8 GB
SAN w/ RAID 5 disk config
It runs 25% slower
But here is the real kicker. When this process is run on a 64 bit server with the following specs
Processors: 8x3658MHz processors
Memory: 8 GB
SAN w/ RAID 5 disk config
It runs 75% slower.
This process consists solely of stored procedures written in TSQL. The weird thing is that on our smaller server, the CPUs' % utilization are evenly balanced (at 20-30%) when this large data manipulation process is running. However on the bigger servers, SQL Server latches onto a single processor and doesn't load balance across other processors. Such that what we're seeing is that only one processor out of the eight will be utilized and it will be throttled at 90% while the other 7 are at zero.
The default configuration settings in all three places.
Has anyone ever seen any behavior like this, where only one processor gets used by SQL Server during processing? Granted our processes are single threaded b/c they are using cursors but, it seems that the single thread shouldn't be restricted to one processor.
Any thoughts?
A Visual C++ realtime system {NT4 (sp3) and SQL 6.5 (no sp)} on pentium pro machines perform as expected, when the Pentium Pro workstations were replaced with Pentium II machines, a significant performance impact was observed. From a cold-boot of the system (1 server (Pentium Pro HP NetServer, 2 workstations (Dell PEDGE2300) and 5 PCs) the response time from SQL Server was dramatically reduced (on 1 workstation) after running a volume test. Example, when the problem was found: a simple query run from the server would take milliseconds and the same query run from the workstation took 20 seconds to complete.
I would very much appreciate any insight.
Thanks in advance.