Hi,
Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Thanks !!!
SQL Licensing is per physical CPU 'Socket'.
Dual core, hyperthreaded processors can be seen as four (4) processors by
the OS (and SQL Server) -BUT only require a single license.
There is a Computer GOD!
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Thinkpad21" <thinkpad21@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ukXwjFuHHHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
> Thanks !!!
>
|||Thinkpad21 wrote:
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Regardless of how you license it SQL Server can use all processors. It
is your repsonsibility to license them correctly (i.e. per physical
processor).
For optimum performance with HT it is important that you mask 2 of the
logical processors so that SQL Server will not attempt to use more than
that number. 2 x HT CPUs is NOT the same as 4 cores.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322385
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
Showing posts with label physical. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physical. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
HyperTreading and SQL 2000 licenses.
Hi,
Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Thanks !!!SQL Licensing is per physical CPU 'Socket'.
Dual core, hyperthreaded processors can be seen as four (4) processors by
the OS (and SQL Server) -BUT only require a single license.
There is a Computer GOD!
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Thinkpad21" <thinkpad21@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ukXwjFuHHHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
> Thanks !!!
>|||Thinkpad21 wrote:
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Regardless of how you license it SQL Server can use all processors. It
is your repsonsibility to license them correctly (i.e. per physical
processor).
For optimum performance with HT it is important that you mask 2 of the
logical processors so that SQL Server will not attempt to use more than
that number. 2 x HT CPUs is NOT the same as 4 cores.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322385
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Thanks !!!SQL Licensing is per physical CPU 'Socket'.
Dual core, hyperthreaded processors can be seen as four (4) processors by
the OS (and SQL Server) -BUT only require a single license.
There is a Computer GOD!
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Thinkpad21" <thinkpad21@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ukXwjFuHHHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
> Thanks !!!
>|||Thinkpad21 wrote:
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Regardless of how you license it SQL Server can use all processors. It
is your repsonsibility to license them correctly (i.e. per physical
processor).
For optimum performance with HT it is important that you mask 2 of the
logical processors so that SQL Server will not attempt to use more than
that number. 2 x HT CPUs is NOT the same as 4 cores.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322385
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
HyperTreading and SQL 2000 licenses.
Hi,
Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Thanks !!!SQL Licensing is per physical CPU 'Socket'.
Dual core, hyperthreaded processors can be seen as four (4) processors by
the OS (and SQL Server) -BUT only require a single license.
There is a Computer GOD!
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Thinkpad21" <thinkpad21@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ukXwjFuHHHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
> Thanks !!!
>|||Thinkpad21 wrote:
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Regardless of how you license it SQL Server can use all processors. It
is your repsonsibility to license them correctly (i.e. per physical
processor).
For optimum performance with HT it is important that you mask 2 of the
logical processors so that SQL Server will not attempt to use more than
that number. 2 x HT CPUs is NOT the same as 4 cores.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322385
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Thanks !!!SQL Licensing is per physical CPU 'Socket'.
Dual core, hyperthreaded processors can be seen as four (4) processors by
the OS (and SQL Server) -BUT only require a single license.
There is a Computer GOD!
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
You can't help someone get up a hill without getting a little closer to the
top yourself.
- H. Norman Schwarzkopf
"Thinkpad21" <thinkpad21@.yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ukXwjFuHHHA.1264@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
> Thanks !!!
>|||Thinkpad21 wrote:
> Hi,
> Licensing wise, if a server has 2 physical CPU's that hyperthreaded, how
> many licenses need to be configured in SQL interface.
> I know we need to buy 2, but does SQL 2000 recognize that the 4 CPU's
> showing are really 2 physical CPU's...
Regardless of how you license it SQL Server can use all processors. It
is your repsonsibility to license them correctly (i.e. per physical
processor).
For optimum performance with HT it is important that you mask 2 of the
logical processors so that SQL Server will not attempt to use more than
that number. 2 x HT CPUs is NOT the same as 4 cores.
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/322385
--
David Portas, SQL Server MVP
Whenever possible please post enough code to reproduce your problem.
Including CREATE TABLE and INSERT statements usually helps.
State what version of SQL Server you are using and specify the content
of any error messages.
SQL Server Books Online:
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/library/ms130214(en-US,SQL.90).aspx
--
Hyperthreading killing performance of simple query?
We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with hyperthreading,
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
Derrick
Derrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>
|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/larar/archive/2006/11/13/maximum-degree-of-parallelism-and-hyperthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/11/12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
Derrick
Derrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>
|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/larar/archive/2006/11/13/maximum-degree-of-parallelism-and-hyperthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/11/12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
Hyperthreading killing performance of simple query?
We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with hyperthreading,
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
DerrickDerrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
>> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
>> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
>> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
>> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
>> progression.
>> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
>> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
>> there is no load (the current case)
>> Thanks in advance!
>> Derrick
>|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/larar/archive/2006/11/13/maximum-degree-of-parallelism-and-hyperthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/11/12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Derrick,
>> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
>> may make them perform abysmally.
>> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting
>> an OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate
>> good success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
>> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
>> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
>> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
>> FWIW,
>> RLF
>> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
>> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
>> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop
>> set to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
>> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
>> progression.
>> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
>> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
>> there is no load (the current case)
>> Thanks in advance!
>> Derrick
>>
>
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
DerrickDerrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
>> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
>> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
>> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
>> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
>> progression.
>> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
>> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
>> there is no load (the current case)
>> Thanks in advance!
>> Derrick
>|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/larar/archive/2006/11/13/maximum-degree-of-parallelism-and-hyperthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/11/12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Derrick,
>> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
>> may make them perform abysmally.
>> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting
>> an OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate
>> good success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
>> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
>> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
>> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
>> FWIW,
>> RLF
>> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
>> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
>> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop
>> set to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
>> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
>> progression.
>> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
>> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
>> there is no load (the current case)
>> Thanks in advance!
>> Derrick
>>
>
Hyperthreading killing performance of simple query?
We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with hyperthreading,
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
DerrickDerrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/lar...rthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archiv.../12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set to
0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200 milliseconds.
setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time progression.
Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a higher
maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where there is
no load (the current case)
Thanks in advance!
DerrickDerrick,
It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
may make them perform abysmally.
Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be 4.
Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
FWIW,
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> We have a new server, 4 physical dual core processors, with
> hyperthreading, so it shows up as 16 logical processors.
> A simple query joining 3 tables, a distinct, an order by, with maxdop set
> to 0, takes over 2 seconds. With maxdop set to 1, it takes 200
> milliseconds. setting maxdop between 1 and 15, pretty linear time
> progression.
> Does this sound sane? Is there some magic matrix where under load a
> higher maxdop will result in this simple query running faster than where
> there is no load (the current case)
> Thanks in advance!
> Derrick
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
enabled, or disabled?
We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the way
to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have seen/read?
Thanks again,
Derrick
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Derrick,
> It is true: Parallelism does not alway help. In fact, for some queries it
> may make them perform abysmally.
> Although I do not do this personally, several posters recommend setting an
> OLTP server to a maximum degree of parallelism of 1. They indicate good
> success and few discernable problems because of the setting.
> I do follow the guideline to limit the server's maximum degree of
> parallelism to the number of physical chips, which in your case would be
> 4. Then, if a query is troubled we can specifically run it at MAXDOP 1.
> FWIW,
> RLF
> "Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
> news:%23E%23LO250HHA.5644@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>|||Derrick,
Lara Rubbelke made these comments:
http://blogs.digineer.com/blogs/lar...rthreading.aspx
He links to Slava Ok's
http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archiv.../12/492119.aspx
Their bottom seems to be, do not enable hyperthreading unless you have
proved it will help you.
RLF
"Derrick" <derrick1298@.excite.com> wrote in message
news:u1F0WU60HHA.464@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the info, one more q, so would you reccomend hyperthreading be
> enabled, or disabled?
> We ran tests both ways and turning hyperthreading off does not seem the
> way to go based on our results, does that match up with what you have
> seen/read?
> Thanks again,
> Derrick
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJddSQ60HHA.3788@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
Hyperthreading
Hi,
I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
Thanks,
Scott
The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like following:
Phy0 = Log0
Phy1 = Log1
Phy2 = Log2
Phy3 = Log3
Phy0 = Log4
Phy1 = Log5
Phy2 = Log6
Phy3 = Log7
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
> processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
> are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
> processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
> and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
> Thanks,
> Scott
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
>
So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Rick Sawtell
|||So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Yep.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rick Sawtell" <r_sawtell@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejUJKjcmFHA.3336@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
>
> Rick Sawtell
>
|||I'm not sure that you refer to the two logical processors on one physical processor as
"virtual/hyperthreader" vs "physical". But, yes, you get the idea.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B568019-6053-43F8-8B35-D79FBEF32C9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
|||Actually even though they suggest that there are several variations. There
is a utility on Intel's web site (somewhere<g>) that will supposedly show
you the layout for that particular configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
Thanks,
Scott
The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like following:
Phy0 = Log0
Phy1 = Log1
Phy2 = Log2
Phy3 = Log3
Phy0 = Log4
Phy1 = Log5
Phy2 = Log6
Phy3 = Log7
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
> processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
> are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
> processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
> and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
> Thanks,
> Scott
|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
>
So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Rick Sawtell
|||So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
|||> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Yep.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rick Sawtell" <r_sawtell@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejUJKjcmFHA.3336@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
>
> Rick Sawtell
>
|||I'm not sure that you refer to the two logical processors on one physical processor as
"virtual/hyperthreader" vs "physical". But, yes, you get the idea.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B568019-6053-43F8-8B35-D79FBEF32C9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
|||Actually even though they suggest that there are several variations. There
is a utility on Intel's web site (somewhere<g>) that will supposedly show
you the layout for that particular configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
Hyperthreading
Hi,
I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
Thanks,
ScottThe firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like
following:
Phy0 = Log0
Phy1 = Log1
Phy2 = Log2
Phy3 = Log3
Phy0 = Log4
Phy1 = Log5
Phy2 = Log6
Phy3 = Log7
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
> processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
> are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
> processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physic
al
> and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
> Thanks,
> Scott|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
>
So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Rick Sawtell|||So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it li
ke following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>|||> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical
and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Yep.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rick Sawtell" <r_sawtell@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejUJKjcmFHA.3336@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote i
n message
> news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
>
> Rick Sawtell
>|||I'm not sure that you refer to the two logical processors on one physical pr
ocessor as
"virtual/hyperthreader" vs "physical". But, yes, you get the idea.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B568019-6053-43F8-8B35-D79FBEF32C9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||Actually even though they suggest that there are several variations. There
is a utility on Intel's web site (somewhere<g> ) that will supposedly show
you the layout for that particular configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physical
and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
Thanks,
ScottThe firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it like
following:
Phy0 = Log0
Phy1 = Log1
Phy2 = Log2
Phy3 = Log3
Phy0 = Log4
Phy1 = Log5
Phy2 = Log6
Phy3 = Log7
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
> Hi,
> I have a 4 processor server with hyperthreading enabled. The
> processors show up in SQL as Processors 0-7. My question is, which numbers
> are physical processors and which numbers are the virtual/hyperthreaded
> processors? The reason I want to know is that I want to take away 1 physic
al
> and 1 virtual processor from the processors that SQL is allowed to use.
> Thanks,
> Scott|||"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
>
So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Rick Sawtell|||So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
"Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it li
ke following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>|||> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor (both physical
and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
Yep.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Rick Sawtell" <r_sawtell@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ejUJKjcmFHA.3336@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> "Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote i
n message
> news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> So if I am reading this correctly, if I wanted to remove the 4th processor
(both physical and
> hyperthreaded), I would remove the Log3 and Log7...
>
> Rick Sawtell
>|||I'm not sure that you refer to the two logical processors on one physical pr
ocessor as
"virtual/hyperthreader" vs "physical". But, yes, you get the idea.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0B568019-6053-43F8-8B35-D79FBEF32C9D@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> So, 0-3 are physical processors and 4-7 are virtual/hyperthreaded?
>
> "Tibor Karaszi" wrote:
>|||Actually even though they suggest that there are several variations. There
is a utility on Intel's web site (somewhere<g> ) that will supposedly show
you the layout for that particular configuration.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Tibor Karaszi" <tibor_please.no.email_karaszi@.hotmail.nomail.com> wrote in
message news:eE9lDgcmFHA.3544@.TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> The firmware/hardware manufacturers are recommended by Intel to make it
> like following:
> Phy0 = Log0
> Phy1 = Log1
> Phy2 = Log2
> Phy3 = Log3
> Phy0 = Log4
> Phy1 = Log5
> Phy2 = Log6
> Phy3 = Log7
> --
> Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
> http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
> http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
> Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
>
> "Scott" <Scott@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:9095D9D1-FE9A-4536-8BA7-96FF93634660@.microsoft.com...
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)