Performance 1proc vs. 2proc

We are purchasing a new Win2003 Server with SQL Server Standard. Due to the
pricing structure of PER PROCESSOR pricing, can someone tell me is the
benefit of a 2nd processor worth the cost on a database server that is
primarily a backend to multiple web based apps?
ThanksMSUTech,
There is no way to say without knowing your load. It is not a matter of the
client (e.g. web app, VB app, etc.) but a matter of the kind of queries that
you are running. If your workload is not very heavy and the queries return
only small row sets, then you are probably fine.
However, a second processor can come in very handy with a greater load or a
mixture of long and short running queries. Why? Because it actually has
another physical processor (and that does matter) to run additional requests
when one processor is very busy. Most of the benefits you can get with a
multi-core processor (not hyperthreaded) since the cores are mostly
independent AND because Microsoft views a multi-core processor as a single
processor. (Very nice of them.)
But, bottom line is that you have to figure the cost/benefit based on your
workload. How much time do you spend waiting? How long do your average and
maximum length queries run? How much are you updating the database? What
kind of locking or blocking are you seeing?
And get a multi-core processor since it has no impact on your licensing.
RLF
"MSUTech" <MSUTech@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:53BC8FF1-5DA6-47BC-9669-4C4AC48CC5FB@.microsoft.com...
> We are purchasing a new Win2003 Server with SQL Server Standard. Due to
> the
> pricing structure of PER PROCESSOR pricing, can someone tell me is the
> benefit of a 2nd processor worth the cost on a database server that is
> primarily a backend to multiple web based apps?
> Thanks|||Russell,
If you have more than 1 processor then at the very least SQL and have its
own processor and Windows and other processes could run on the other
processor if you configure the server that way. Sometimes we forget the
processes that Windows wants/needs to do while SQL is running.
Chris
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:uPiawylpIHA.3428@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> MSUTech,
> There is no way to say without knowing your load. It is not a matter of
> the client (e.g. web app, VB app, etc.) but a matter of the kind of
> queries that you are running. If your workload is not very heavy and the
> queries return only small row sets, then you are probably fine.
> However, a second processor can come in very handy with a greater load or
> a mixture of long and short running queries. Why? Because it actually
> has another physical processor (and that does matter) to run additional
> requests when one processor is very busy. Most of the benefits you can
> get with a multi-core processor (not hyperthreaded) since the cores are
> mostly independent AND because Microsoft views a multi-core processor as a
> single processor. (Very nice of them.)
> But, bottom line is that you have to figure the cost/benefit based on your
> workload. How much time do you spend waiting? How long do your average
> and maximum length queries run? How much are you updating the database?
> What kind of locking or blocking are you seeing?
> And get a multi-core processor since it has no impact on your licensing.
> RLF
> "MSUTech" <MSUTech@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:53BC8FF1-5DA6-47BC-9669-4C4AC48CC5FB@.microsoft.com...
>> We are purchasing a new Win2003 Server with SQL Server Standard. Due to
>> the
>> pricing structure of PER PROCESSOR pricing, can someone tell me is the
>> benefit of a 2nd processor worth the cost on a database server that is
>> primarily a backend to multiple web based apps?
>> Thanks
>|||Chris,
True enough. For example, even staying within the SQL Server domain,
running DTS / SSIS is another process.
If you have a dual processor machine, however, you need to license SQL
Server for two processors. The licensing does not have a provision for
promising never to use the other processor, although it is possible to do
so.
But a multi-core (dual or quad) processor brings most of the benefits of two
processors while still being licensed as a single processor. So, the
multi-core processor benefits would extend to Windows and other processes
that might run on the machine.
RLF
"Chris Wood" <anonymous@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:OhOpU9upIHA.6096@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> If you have more than 1 processor then at the very least SQL and have its
> own processor and Windows and other processes could run on the other
> processor if you configure the server that way. Sometimes we forget the
> processes that Windows wants/needs to do while SQL is running.
> Chris
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:uPiawylpIHA.3428@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> MSUTech,
>> There is no way to say without knowing your load. It is not a matter of
>> the client (e.g. web app, VB app, etc.) but a matter of the kind of
>> queries that you are running. If your workload is not very heavy and the
>> queries return only small row sets, then you are probably fine.
>> However, a second processor can come in very handy with a greater load or
>> a mixture of long and short running queries. Why? Because it actually
>> has another physical processor (and that does matter) to run additional
>> requests when one processor is very busy. Most of the benefits you can
>> get with a multi-core processor (not hyperthreaded) since the cores are
>> mostly independent AND because Microsoft views a multi-core processor as
>> a single processor. (Very nice of them.)
>> But, bottom line is that you have to figure the cost/benefit based on
>> your workload. How much time do you spend waiting? How long do your
>> average and maximum length queries run? How much are you updating the
>> database? What kind of locking or blocking are you seeing?
>> And get a multi-core processor since it has no impact on your licensing.
>> RLF
>> "MSUTech" <MSUTech@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:53BC8FF1-5DA6-47BC-9669-4C4AC48CC5FB@.microsoft.com...
>> We are purchasing a new Win2003 Server with SQL Server Standard. Due to
>> the
>> pricing structure of PER PROCESSOR pricing, can someone tell me is the
>> benefit of a 2nd processor worth the cost on a database server that is
>> primarily a backend to multiple web based apps?
>> Thanks
>>
>|||I should have been a little clearer with multiple CPU's meaning multi-core
for licencing benefits.
Chris
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:e3Bs3PvpIHA.4928@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Chris,
> True enough. For example, even staying within the SQL Server domain,
> running DTS / SSIS is another process.
> If you have a dual processor machine, however, you need to license SQL
> Server for two processors. The licensing does not have a provision for
> promising never to use the other processor, although it is possible to do
> so.
> But a multi-core (dual or quad) processor brings most of the benefits of
> two processors while still being licensed as a single processor. So, the
> multi-core processor benefits would extend to Windows and other processes
> that might run on the machine.
> RLF
>
> "Chris Wood" <anonymous@.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:OhOpU9upIHA.6096@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Russell,
>> If you have more than 1 processor then at the very least SQL and have its
>> own processor and Windows and other processes could run on the other
>> processor if you configure the server that way. Sometimes we forget the
>> processes that Windows wants/needs to do while SQL is running.
>> Chris
>> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uPiawylpIHA.3428@.TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> MSUTech,
>> There is no way to say without knowing your load. It is not a matter of
>> the client (e.g. web app, VB app, etc.) but a matter of the kind of
>> queries that you are running. If your workload is not very heavy and
>> the queries return only small row sets, then you are probably fine.
>> However, a second processor can come in very handy with a greater load
>> or a mixture of long and short running queries. Why? Because it
>> actually has another physical processor (and that does matter) to run
>> additional requests when one processor is very busy. Most of the
>> benefits you can get with a multi-core processor (not hyperthreaded)
>> since the cores are mostly independent AND because Microsoft views a
>> multi-core processor as a single processor. (Very nice of them.)
>> But, bottom line is that you have to figure the cost/benefit based on
>> your workload. How much time do you spend waiting? How long do your
>> average and maximum length queries run? How much are you updating the
>> database? What kind of locking or blocking are you seeing?
>> And get a multi-core processor since it has no impact on your licensing.
>> RLF
>> "MSUTech" <MSUTech@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:53BC8FF1-5DA6-47BC-9669-4C4AC48CC5FB@.microsoft.com...
>> We are purchasing a new Win2003 Server with SQL Server Standard. Due
>> to the
>> pricing structure of PER PROCESSOR pricing, can someone tell me is the
>> benefit of a 2nd processor worth the cost on a database server that is
>> primarily a backend to multiple web based apps?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>