Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
denisemc
Starting Member
26 Posts |
 Posted - 2003-05-28 : 14:42:10
|
| Anyone have experience running SQL Server with hyperthreading CPUs? We are shopping for new managed service provider, and some of the sales engineers are pushing using a box with hyperthreading.TIA.Denise |
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
|
|
denisemc
Starting Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 16:35:36
|
| thanks for the links. I was specifically wondering about SS performance on this configuration. I've found a couple of references to queries performing better with hyperthreading turned off, and I'm wondering how common that is.Denise |
 |
|
|
X002548
Not Just a Number
15586 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-28 : 17:33:00
|
| Well that defeats the purpose I would think...that's the whole reason for the technology...a processor handling multiple request at the same time...don't know how they do it but...What type of load are you expecting and how much data I guess are the real questions to ask.Brett8-) |
|
|
|
denisemc
Starting Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-29 : 12:34:41
|
| Right, but I think its like the bugs you sometimes see with parallelism; everything should be fine and perform better, but certain query plans can bog down with parallelism on. It seems that in some (rare?) cases, the same thing can happen with hyperthreading. OTOH, other people report successfully running SS on hyperthreading processors. In our situation, we don't need the BMW; the Honda should suit us just fine for a year+. But because we use a Managed Service Provider, we might be in a situation where we have to use higher-end equipment, because that's what they have/support. But I don't want to be sales-talked into a platform that could cause problems.Denise |
|
|
|
Arnold Fribble
Yak-finder General
1961 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-29 : 15:08:21
|
| I know don't if, in an ideal situation, SQL Server itself needs to know more than it currently does about processor affinity to cope with hyperthreading, but I would expect there to be some improvement from running Windows 2003 Server compared to Windows 2000.Certainly, if Windows 2000 cannot tell the difference between two physical processor and a single processor with hyperthreading enabled, it could conceivably schedule threads that end up fighting over the shared resources -- the various processor caches and the memory bandwidth.But why the worry about buying a machine with HT processors? You can always (?) turn it off in the BIOS.Edited by - Arnold Fribble on 05/29/2003 15:08:45 |
|
|
|
denisemc
Starting Member
26 Posts |
Posted - 2003-05-29 : 17:26:07
|
| The deal with using a managed service provider is that you don't own the equipment; you pay a monthly fee for hardware/software use, connectivity, professional services, etc. So even if you tell them you need a plain-vanilla server, they might not have one of those available. But, they'll offer a hyperthreading-capable machine, which costs more. (It's sort of like buying a car: the salesman would rather put you in something that is on the lot than special order the exact one you want.) So yeah, I could turn it off, but I have to pay for it anyway. The reason to use an MSP is supposed to be cost-effectiveness. Paying for more than I need or can use defeats the purpose.Denise |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server and Hyperthreading?