Hi,
SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
sql services and databases with new processors?
TIA
Armin
armin,
As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
armin wrote:
> Hi,
> SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
> memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
> these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
> there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
> sql services and databases with new processors?
> TIA
> Armin
|||Thank you very much, to all of you!
If I unterstood complete discussion correctly, as soon as
NT comes up, I should let it fly?
BR
Armin
[vbcol=seagreen]
>--Original Message--
>armin,
>As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>
>armin wrote:
starting
>.
>
Showing posts with label processors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label processors. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
processors replacement
Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
watch your server fly...
Peter
"The best minds are not in government. If any were,
business would steal them away."
Ronald Reagan
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
>sql services and databases with new processors?
>TIA
>Armin
>.
>
They have to shut down the server to add the upgrades and all execution
plans are lost when you stop sql server anyway. And the plans are not
directly related to disk speed at all. Even CPU and memory are things that
are taken into account at run time and not necessarily at compile time. A
complex plan will always have a single and a parallel plan created the first
time it is run. At run time it is decided based on how busy the cpu's are,
memory available, etc that determine if the single threaded plan is used or
a parallel plan and how many threads generated.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter The Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:766e01c494e9$304f2300$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
> developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
> speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
> Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
> watch your server fly...
> Peter
> "The best minds are not in government. If any were,
> business would steal them away."
> Ronald Reagan
>
developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
watch your server fly...
Peter
"The best minds are not in government. If any were,
business would steal them away."
Ronald Reagan
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
>sql services and databases with new processors?
>TIA
>Armin
>.
>
They have to shut down the server to add the upgrades and all execution
plans are lost when you stop sql server anyway. And the plans are not
directly related to disk speed at all. Even CPU and memory are things that
are taken into account at run time and not necessarily at compile time. A
complex plan will always have a single and a parallel plan created the first
time it is run. At run time it is decided based on how busy the cpu's are,
memory available, etc that determine if the single threaded plan is used or
a parallel plan and how many threads generated.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter The Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:766e01c494e9$304f2300$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
> developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
> speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
> Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
> watch your server fly...
> Peter
> "The best minds are not in government. If any were,
> business would steal them away."
> Ronald Reagan
>
processors replacement
Hi,
SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
sql services and databases with new processors?
TIA
Arminarmin,
As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
armin wrote:
> Hi,
> SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
> memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
> these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
> there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
> sql services and databases with new processors?
> TIA
> Armin|||Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
watch your server fly...
Peter
"The best minds are not in government. If any were,
business would steal them away."
Ronald Reagan
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
>sql services and databases with new processors?
>TIA
>Armin
>.
>|||They have to shut down the server to add the upgrades and all execution
plans are lost when you stop sql server anyway. And the plans are not
directly related to disk speed at all. Even CPU and memory are things that
are taken into account at run time and not necessarily at compile time. A
complex plan will always have a single and a parallel plan created the first
time it is run. At run time it is decided based on how busy the cpu's are,
memory available, etc that determine if the single threaded plan is used or
a parallel plan and how many threads generated.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter The Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:766e01c494e9$304f2300$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
> developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
> speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
> Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
> watch your server fly...
> Peter
> "The best minds are not in government. If any were,
> business would steal them away."
> Ronald Reagan
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
> >memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
> >these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
> >there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
> >sql services and databases with new processors?
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Armin
> >.
> >|||Thank you very much, to all of you!
If I unterstood complete discussion correctly, as soon as
NT comes up, I should let it fly?
BR
Armin
>--Original Message--
>armin,
>As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>
>armin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>> memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>> these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>> there any known problem we can expect regarding
starting
>> sql services and databases with new processors?
>> TIA
>> Armin
>.
>sql
SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
sql services and databases with new processors?
TIA
Arminarmin,
As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
http://www.markallison.co.uk
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
armin wrote:
> Hi,
> SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
> memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
> these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
> there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
> sql services and databases with new processors?
> TIA
> Armin|||Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
watch your server fly...
Peter
"The best minds are not in government. If any were,
business would steal them away."
Ronald Reagan
>--Original Message--
>Hi,
>SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
>sql services and databases with new processors?
>TIA
>Armin
>.
>|||They have to shut down the server to add the upgrades and all execution
plans are lost when you stop sql server anyway. And the plans are not
directly related to disk speed at all. Even CPU and memory are things that
are taken into account at run time and not necessarily at compile time. A
complex plan will always have a single and a parallel plan created the first
time it is run. At run time it is decided based on how busy the cpu's are,
memory available, etc that determine if the single threaded plan is used or
a parallel plan and how many threads generated.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Peter The Spate" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:766e01c494e9$304f2300$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Your execution plans are going to need updating. They are
> developed using a combination of cpu, memory and disk
> speed, so if one changes its going to effect the rest.
> Its not a big job, just look up update statistics, then
> watch your server fly...
> Peter
> "The best minds are not in government. If any were,
> business would steal them away."
> Ronald Reagan
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Hi,
> >
> >SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
> >memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
> >these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
> >there any known problem we can expect regarding starting
> >sql services and databases with new processors?
> >
> >TIA
> >
> >Armin
> >.
> >|||Thank you very much, to all of you!
If I unterstood complete discussion correctly, as soon as
NT comes up, I should let it fly?
BR
Armin
>--Original Message--
>armin,
>As long as Windows comes up, should be fine. ;-)
>Mark Allison, SQL Server MVP
>http://www.markallison.co.uk
>Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602m.html
>
>armin wrote:
>> Hi,
>> SQL Server 7.0 is running on WinNT 4.0, 4 processors 4G
>> memory (3G used for sql server). We're going to replace
>> these processors with the new, faster 4 processors. Is
>> there any known problem we can expect regarding
starting
>> sql services and databases with new processors?
>> TIA
>> Armin
>.
>sql
Processors
Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> >
> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
>> 8
>> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former
>> over
>> the later.
>> --
>> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
>> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
>> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>>
>> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
>> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
>> >
>> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Money for licensing is of no concern.
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> >
> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> >
> > Thanks
> >|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
>> 8
>> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former
>> over
>> the later.
>> --
>> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
>> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
>> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>>
>> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
>> > dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
>> >
>> > I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> Money for licensing is of no concern.
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Processors
Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>
dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
ThanksThe licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's 8
processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
the later.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Does anybody have any experience or know of any articles between 4
> dual-core vs. a 8 proc box'
> I'm looking at comparing processors exclusively.
> Thanks
>|||Money for licensing is of no concern.
Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> The licensing price for 4 dual-core is 4 processors but for 8 proc., it's
8
> processors. This should be a sufficient argument to chose the former over
> the later.
> --
> Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
> MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
> E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
>
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157559259.768841.213380@.h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...|||Then you're a lucky guy or you are doing a theorytical study.
Comparing a dual core processor with two single cores mean nothing if you
don't specify the type of processor, memory, motherboard (north and south
bridges are important here) and the type of controler used for input/output
. Of course, running 32 or 64 bits will also have some effect on the
results, as well as the type of software and operating system used.
So, comparing only the processors can be tricky.
However, if you want a short answer, single core processor are older
technologies, so they should probably give you a lesser performance in
comparaison against the latest dual-core processors running at the same
frequency on a core by core basis.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
>
>
> Sylvain Lafontaine (fill the blanks, no spam please) wrote:
>|||Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
of records, we have found parallelism essential.|||SQL Server doesn't differentiate between a dual core processor and two
single core processors - they're both seen as two processors. The actual
performance is going to depend on the processor architecture - whether the
dual core shares components between the processor for example.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Multi-cores is not hyperthreading: excerpt for the licensing purpose, there
is no real difference in performance or in functionality between a dual-core
or two single cores.
However, a dual-core will not access the memory in the same way as two
single cores because of the type of memory controler used and the L2 cache
and even then, there are differences between old dual cores and the new
models, the latest beeing able to share their L2 cache between the two
cores.
For a peformance comparaison between the latest serie of Xeon (the Woodcrest
or the 51xx) and the Opteron, see:
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.aspx?i=2772 .
In my opinion, you don't have to compare the Woodcrest serie with any of the
previous models of Xeon, either single or dual-core.
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Technologies Virtual-PC
E-mail: http://cerbermail.com/?QugbLEWINF
"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157571394.948255.161810@.d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Maybe, to focus my concern slightly, how does SQL 2005 handles
> parallelism with dual core vs. single core architectures. With
> analytical processes crunching enormous datasets, hundreds of millions
> of records, we have found parallelism essential.
>|||Thank you!!|||"Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Money for licensing is of no concern.
I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
(more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
running it illegally.|||Maybe he works for the Treasury Dept and they just print as much money as
they need.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
"Sgt.Sausage" <nobody@.nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:938ee$4501f2a6$42a1e606$22924@.FUSE.NET...
> "Ulan" <wdoman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1157564917.777675.299710@.p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>
> I call "shenanigans" on that statement.
> I'll assume you're on the Enterprise version. Last I checked
> (more than a year ago) Ent was going for $16,000 a processor.
> I don't care what kind of budget you have 4 x 16K = $64,000
> is relevant. It's a concern to even a multi-million dollar budget.
> If it's truly "of no concern", it's because you're planning on
> running it illegally.
>
Processor model
I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.
JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>
|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>
|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>
sql
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.
JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>
|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>
|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>
sql
Processor model
I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
> Yes.
>
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>
Processor model
I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
>> level to be legal?
> Yes.
>> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
>> bought license for one processor?
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
>> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
>> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
>> will use at most 1 processor?
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
>> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
>> even though I only bought license for one processor?
>> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the
>> bios level to be legal?
>> Yes.
>> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
>> bought license for one processor?
>> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
>> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
>> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
>> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
>> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
>> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express
>> edition will use at most 1 processor?
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the
>> bios level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4
>> processors even though I only bought license for one processor?
>> Help would be appreciated.
>>
>
If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do not
have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition will
use at most 1 processor?
But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even
though I only bought license for one processor?
Help would be appreciated.JJ,
I could be wrong, but I believe you cannot get around licensing by
restricting the number of processers. I believe if you buy a license for one
processor, then you cannot use it on any server with more than one physical
processor.
-- Bill
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal?
Yes.
> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
> bought license for one processor?
SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to 4.
However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
> will use at most 1 processor?
> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
> even though I only bought license for one processor?
> Help would be appreciated.
>|||But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors, right?
Thanks
"Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
>> level to be legal?
> Yes.
>> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
>> bought license for one processor?
> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
> --
> Hope this helps.
> Dan Guzman
> SQL Server MVP
> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
>> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
>> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express edition
>> will use at most 1 processor?
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the bios
>> level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors
>> even though I only bought license for one processor?
>> Help would be appreciated.
>|||> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
Correct. SQL Server Express is free so the processing licensing model does
not apply,
--
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:OZo$JxqTHHA.5060@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But if I installed express 2005, then no need to disable processors,
> right?
> Thanks
> "Dan Guzman" <guzmanda@.nospam-online.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:4E406247-920D-4708-AE2F-3D8F816A0E75@.microsoft.com...
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the
>> bios level to be legal?
>> Yes.
>> If I don't disable it, will it use all 4 processors even though I only
>> bought license for one processor?
>> SQL Server will use the lesser of either the number of supported or
>> installed processors. Workgroup supports up to 2 CPUs and Standard up to
>> 4. However you will be violating the license agreement unless you have
>> processor licenses for each processor socket available to the OS. See
>> http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/faq.mspx
>> --
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dan Guzman
>> SQL Server MVP
>> "JJ" <nospam@.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23FeNFl8SHHA.920@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I have a server with 4 dual core processors.
>> If I install SQL Server 2005 Express edition on it (which is free), I do
>> not have to disable other 3 processors because by default express
>> edition will use at most 1 processor?
>> But if I use SQL Server 2005 Workgroup (or Standard) edition with one
>> processor license, I would have to disable other 3 processors at the
>> bios level to be legal? If I don't disable it, will it use all 4
>> processors even though I only bought license for one processor?
>> Help would be appreciated.
>>
>
Processor License
I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?Here is an article on Microsoft's site. It suggests that you would need to
make the processor unavailable to the OS as well.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/processor.asp
As always. Contact your reseller for an official answer.
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
>|||In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
the motherboard...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
>|||Hi Wayne!
> In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
> procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
> Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
> the motherboard...
In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a quote:
You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to any operating system copy
upon which the Server Software is set up to run
· Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more cost-effective for customers
to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the software, through
partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the processors in a server.
The URL is:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%20Guide.doc
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
> procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
> Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
> the motherboard...
>
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> > have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> >
> >
>|||Hi Tibor...
How have you been doing?
Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
requires 2 proc licenses?
thanks bud, I didn't know that...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne!
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
quote:
> You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
any operating system copy
> upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
cost-effective for customers
> to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
software, through
> partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
processors in a server.
>
>
> The URL is:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
0Guide.doc
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > www.computeredservices.com
> > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
that
> > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
not
> > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
assuming I
> > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
run
> > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||My reading of the doc - If the processor is available to the OS, you have to
pay... I'll ask someone at PASS next month... Are you coming?...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne!
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
quote:
> You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
any operating system copy
> upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
cost-effective for customers
> to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
software, through
> partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
processors in a server.
>
>
> The URL is:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
0Guide.doc
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > www.computeredservices.com
> > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
that
> > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
not
> > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
assuming I
> > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
run
> > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Hi Wayne,
> How have you been doing?
I'm good, thanks! Hope you are too :-)
> Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
> requires 2 proc licenses?
Just trimming affinity mask doesn't help, need to be restricted at the OS level (as you posted in
the other post).
> My reading of the doc - If the processor is available to the OS, you have to
> pay... I'll ask someone at PASS next month...
Yep, that is my interpretation as well. Let us know of you get some conflicting info.
> I'll ask someone at PASS next month... Are you coming?...
I'm afraid not. Too much going on here... :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:%23H5Hq$zlDHA.1764@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor...
> How have you been doing?
> Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
> requires 2 proc licenses?
> thanks bud, I didn't know that...
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
> wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Wayne!
> >
> > > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
> the
> > > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
> SQL
> > > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
> of
> > > the motherboard...
> >
> > In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
> quote:
> > You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
> any operating system copy
> > upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> > · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
> cost-effective for customers
> > to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
> software, through
> > partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
> processors in a server.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The URL is:
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
> 0Guide.doc
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
> ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
> the
> > > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
> SQL
> > > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
> of
> > > the motherboard...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > > www.computeredservices.com
> > > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> > >
> > > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > > www.sqlpass.org
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
> that
> > > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
> not
> > > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
> assuming I
> > > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
> run
> > > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?Here is an article on Microsoft's site. It suggests that you would need to
make the processor unavailable to the OS as well.
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/howtobuy/processor.asp
As always. Contact your reseller for an official answer.
--
--
Allan Mitchell (Microsoft SQL Server MVP)
MCSE,MCDBA
www.SQLDTS.com
I support PASS - the definitive, global community
for SQL Server professionals - http://www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
>|||In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
the motherboard...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
>|||Hi Wayne!
> In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
> procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
> Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
> the motherboard...
In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a quote:
You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to any operating system copy
upon which the Server Software is set up to run
· Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more cost-effective for customers
to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the software, through
partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the processors in a server.
The URL is:
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%20Guide.doc
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF the
> procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for SQL
> Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off of
> the motherboard...
>
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server that
> > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do not
> > have any control over the users that access this system. I am assuming I
> > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can run
> > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> >
> >
>|||Hi Tibor...
How have you been doing?
Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
requires 2 proc licenses?
thanks bud, I didn't know that...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne!
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
quote:
> You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
any operating system copy
> upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
cost-effective for customers
> to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
software, through
> partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
processors in a server.
>
>
> The URL is:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
0Guide.doc
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > www.computeredservices.com
> > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
that
> > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
not
> > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
assuming I
> > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
run
> > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||My reading of the doc - If the processor is available to the OS, you have to
pay... I'll ask someone at PASS next month... Are you coming?...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
www.computeredservices.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hi Wayne!
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
quote:
> You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
any operating system copy
> upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
cost-effective for customers
> to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
software, through
> partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
processors in a server.
>
>
> The URL is:
>
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
0Guide.doc
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
>
> "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
the
> > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
SQL
> > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
of
> > the motherboard...
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > www.computeredservices.com
> > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> >
> > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > www.sqlpass.org
> >
> >
> > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
that
> > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
not
> > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
assuming I
> > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
run
> > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||Hi Wayne,
> How have you been doing?
I'm good, thanks! Hope you are too :-)
> Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
> requires 2 proc licenses?
Just trimming affinity mask doesn't help, need to be restricted at the OS level (as you posted in
the other post).
> My reading of the doc - If the processor is available to the OS, you have to
> pay... I'll ask someone at PASS next month...
Yep, that is my interpretation as well. Let us know of you get some conflicting info.
> I'll ask someone at PASS next month... Are you coming?...
I'm afraid not. Too much going on here... :-)
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as_ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
"Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
news:%23H5Hq$zlDHA.1764@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Hi Tibor...
> How have you been doing?
> Does that mean that SQL enabled to use 2 procs on an 8 proc machine only
> requires 2 proc licenses?
> thanks bud, I didn't know that...
> --
> Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> www.computeredservices.com
> (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> community of SQL Server professionals.
> www.sqlpass.org
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor.please_reply_to_public_forum.karaszi@.cornerstone.se>
> wrote in message news:eRxFjtwlDHA.2652@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> > Hi Wayne!
> >
> > > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
> the
> > > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
> SQL
> > > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
> of
> > > the motherboard...
> >
> > In the word doc released in May, MS softened down this a bit. Here's a
> quote:
> > You must acquire licenses for only those processors that are accessible to
> any operating system copy
> > upon which the Server Software is set up to run
> > · Microsoft is enhancing its server licensing to make it more
> cost-effective for customers
> > to utilize Server Software licensed in the Per Processor model when the
> software, through
> > partitioning or other similar technology, does not utilize all of the
> processors in a server.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The URL is:
> >
> http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/downloads/Server%20Licensing%20Customer%2
> 0Guide.doc
> >
> > --
> > Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> > Archive at: http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&as
> ugroup=microsoft.public.sqlserver
> >
> >
> > "Wayne Snyder" <wsnyder@.computeredservices.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23h6$JawlDHA.1084@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > In addition to Allan's answer, the general rule by MS has been that IF
> the
> > > procs are on the motherboard (whether or not you have them disabled for
> SQL
> > > Server use), you must buy licenses for that proc - or take the proc off
> of
> > > the motherboard...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
> > > Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
> > > www.computeredservices.com
> > > (Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
> > >
> > > I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
> > > community of SQL Server professionals.
> > > www.sqlpass.org
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sarah Kingswell" <sarah.kingswell@.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> > > news:#c5oilvlDHA.2592@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > > > I am going to have to install a web based application on a SQL server
> that
> > > > has 4 processors. The web application will integrate with SQL. I do
> not
> > > > have any control over the users that access this system. I am
> assuming I
> > > > will need to but a 4 processor license for SQL. Is there anyway I can
> run
> > > > SQL on just the 1 processor and buy a single processor license?
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
processor delegation
Hi,
I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
delegate which databases or even which tables can use
which processor in a multi-processor server?
Thanks,
BrentOnly if you use multiple instances and use the processor affinity to
delegate certain cpu's for each instance. You could place each db in it's
own instance and then use the affinity as such. But unless you have more
than 8 procs I wouldn't recommend doing this without a really good reason.
It is usually better to let sql server decide how to use the resources.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Brent" <brent.sodtke@.nucomm.net> wrote in message
news:0e3e01c34627$da6b4d80$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
> processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
> delegate which databases or even which tables can use
> which processor in a multi-processor server?
> Thanks,
> Brent|||Brent,
Nope. If you really want it and have a good case for it, then send your
reasoning to sqlwish@.microsoft.com
> I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
> processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
> delegate which databases or even which tables can use
> which processor in a multi-processor server?
> Thanks,
> Brent
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faqsql
I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
delegate which databases or even which tables can use
which processor in a multi-processor server?
Thanks,
BrentOnly if you use multiple instances and use the processor affinity to
delegate certain cpu's for each instance. You could place each db in it's
own instance and then use the affinity as such. But unless you have more
than 8 procs I wouldn't recommend doing this without a really good reason.
It is usually better to let sql server decide how to use the resources.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Brent" <brent.sodtke@.nucomm.net> wrote in message
news:0e3e01c34627$da6b4d80$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
> processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
> delegate which databases or even which tables can use
> which processor in a multi-processor server?
> Thanks,
> Brent|||Brent,
Nope. If you really want it and have a good case for it, then send your
reasoning to sqlwish@.microsoft.com
> I know it's possible in SQL Server 2K to delegate which
> processors for the engine to use, but is it possible to
> delegate which databases or even which tables can use
> which processor in a multi-processor server?
> Thanks,
> Brent
>
Neil Pike MVP/MCSE. Protech Computing Ltd
Reply here - no email
SQL FAQ (484 entries) see
http://forumsb.compuserve.com/gvforums/UK/default.asp?SRV=MSDevApps
(faqxxx.zip in lib 7)
or www.ntfaq.com/Articles/Index.cfm?DepartmentID=800
or www.sqlserverfaq.com
or www.mssqlserver.com/faqsql
Processor affinity.
Is there any way of finding out which processors a SPID is
executing on?I am not 100% sure, but I think profiler will show the proc#.. ( could be
mistaken tho.)
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
(www.sqlpass.org)
<KJGNews@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efaW6PywDHA.2460@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is there any way of finding out which processors a SPID is
> executing on?
>
executing on?I am not 100% sure, but I think profiler will show the proc#.. ( could be
mistaken tho.)
--
Wayne Snyder MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Computer Education Services Corporation (CESC), Charlotte, NC
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
(www.sqlpass.org)
<KJGNews@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:efaW6PywDHA.2460@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Is there any way of finding out which processors a SPID is
> executing on?
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)