Microsoft: Cores vs CPUs vs "processors"

[Pepper]

I'm hoping someone can confirm what I *think* I have figured out.

We are getting ready to build a new database server. It will be a dual-processor system, each processor is a Quad-Core Xeon(TM).

Microsoft say their licensing for server products is per CPU (socket) so a Quad-Core counts as one. Windows 2003 x64 Standard and SQL Server x64 Standard both support up to 4 processors.

The question I have is, will the operating system and SQL server see and use all eight cores, or do I need the Enterprise editions?

 

[harshness]

I don't know if their position has changed recently, but here's an explanation from 2005: http://download.microsoft.com/downl...-b86e3f24e08f/multicore_hyperthread_brief.doc

Essentially, multicore processors are treated as a single processor for licensing purposes.

SQL Server 2005 Workgroup edition would cover the CPU count, but maybe not some of the other parameters.

 

[Pepper]

thanks, that's what I thought.

Would feel a lot better about it though if somebody could say for sure that they have actually seen Windows 2003 Standard and SQL 2005 Standard running on more than four cores.

 

[John Kotches]

Most DB servers I've dealt with have been I/O intensive rather than CPU intensive.

Unless it's running all the SQL on the DB server; it probably isn't necessary to go with dual quad-core Xeons.

Cheers,

 

[Pepper]

normally you would think so, but the situation we are currently running into is constant 100% CPU.

fixing the code on the front end servers would probably help too but we don't have the requisite expertise on board right now. We do have expertise in building bigger faster hardware.

 

[Ilya]

For licensing purposes, yes, all you need is a 2-CPU license. (Thank you MS, for not charging us per core!)
However, I suspect you will not be able to take full advantage of all 8 cores unless you go "Enterprise".
I might be wrong, but that's my understanding...

 

[Pepper]

I hope you're wrong, that would cost me several thousand more buck$.

 

[Ilya]

I hope you're wrong, that would cost me several thousand more buck$.

Looks like I am wrong! Just found this article: You receive a "More than two processors were detected in this computer" warning message when you install Windows Small Business Server 2003
It talks about SBS server, but I guess the same applies to the Standard Edition. Basically Microsoft says that Windows will complain about additional processors (cores), but you are supposed to ignore the warnings and everything will be ok!

 

[John Kotches]

normally you would think so, but the situation we are currently running into is constant 100% CPU.

Insufficient information at this time. My guess is that you might have an issue with some indexes within the database. This would cause you to do sequential table scans instead of direct gets. It can bring a machine to its knees if it hits the "right" tables.

fixing the code on the front end servers would probably help too but we don't have the requisite expertise on board right now. We do have expertise in building bigger faster hardware.

Damn programmers and their inefficient code. That's why we really need more horsepower constantly

Cheers,

 

[Bogy]

Damn programmers and their inefficient code. That's why we really need more horsepower constantly

Cheers,

I remember back when a programmer told me that anyone who wrote code that required more than 64K to run wasn't worth the powder to blow him up. That was a FEW years back.

 

[Derwin0]

I remember back when a programmer told me that anyone who wrote code that required more than 64K to run wasn't worth the powder to blow him up. That was a FEW years back.

I remember a certain chairman of microsoft saying that we'd never need more than 640k.

 

[cparker]

You'll need to move to an Enterprise product if using over 4GB of ram. The standard servers won't use over 4. License is definitely per socket and not per core.

 

[Pepper]

You'll need to move to an Enterprise product if using over 4GB of ram. The standard servers won't use over 4. License is definitely per socket and not per core.

I'm looking at 64-bit Windows server, the limit is 32GB for 2003R2 x64 standard edition.

 

[Foxbat]

Word of Warning with 64-bit Windows: We got burned on our 64-bit SQL 2005 servers when it turned out that not all of the SQL development tools have been compiled for 64-bit apps. We had to reinstall the 32-bit versions of Windows and SQL 2005 in order to go continue our application development.

 

[stevenl]

Also note Ram is possibly the most important part with a DB server, Ram and Hard drive speed. Get a nice raid away for some 1066mhz ram maybe 16gb? and you should be fine with a single quadcore cpu, (Currently thats what I run for my DB server and it gets pounded pretty good) Also note my server runs a Linux OS, the only way to go (although FreeBSD is my first choice)

 

[harshness]

Also note Ram is possibly the most important part with a DB server, Ram and Hard drive speed. Get a nice raid away for some 1066mhz ram maybe 16gb? and you should be fine with a single quadcore cpu, (Currently thats what I run for my DB server and it gets pounded pretty good) Also note my server runs a Linux OS, the only way to go (although FreeBSD is my first choice)

Alas, I would guess that most that run Windows SQL servers do so because the applications they use are tied inextricably to the MS SQL server.