| Groups | Blog | Home |
sql server (alternate) : Dual Xeon or Dual P4 for SQL Server?
I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server. Right now I can only use a single box for both. I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU. My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@ ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu. If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for sql server and the other for everything else?
[quoted text, click to view]
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 07:14:17 -0800, John Dalberg wrote: > I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server. > Right now I can only use a single box for both. > > I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some > parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU. > > My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB > or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@ ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu. > If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for > sql server and the other for everything else? > > John Dalberg I forgot to mention also what about AMD's Athlon since I can get faster Athlons for the same amount of money for Intel CPUs? Are dual Athlon motherboards a good choice for SQL Server?
In article <u1ekecr53aij.1ek79hzro64q4$.dlg@40tude.net>,
john_dd@hotmail.com says... [quoted text, click to view] > > I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server. > Right now I can only use a single box for both. > > I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with some > parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a single CPU. > > My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB > or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@ ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu. > If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for > sql server and the other for everything else? John, you can't use Dual P4's any more, Intel fixed that after the P3. If you want to build a cheap but fast SQL Server, assuming SQL 2000 or higher, tape a look at the ASUS PC-DL Deluxe motherboard. I have about 30 of these running the following: ASUS PC-DL Deluxe Dua Xeon 2.4G (or faster) (make sure they are same lot/part) 2GB or 4GB of RAM (does not require ECC RAM) It has onboard SATA and IDE, you can use a total of 6 drives between the connectors without a problem. The 2GB systems with Dual 250GB SATA drives, video, case, CD-ROM, etc... are under $1900 each. If you want a big box, like this: PC-DL Deluxe Dual Xeon 2.8ghz 2 x 80GB IDE (OS = 12GB, LOGS = 60GB) 6 x 250GB IDE (for DATA files) Promise SX6000 Hardware IDE RAID Controller (hot swap IDE drives) cheap video Chenbro Server case with Dual 550W PSU's and Windows 2003 Standard Server 5cal This box runs about $4000 I run SQL 2000 on Dual P3 and Dual/Quad Xeon without any problems. If you get a P4, get one that does Hyper-Threading, and use Server 2003 so that you get the most benefit from it. As for Athlon, faster is a matter of what task is being performed and how stable you want the system to be. When it comes to business systems I use Intel CPU's only, but that's a personal preference and has never cost me a job or stability. -- -- spamfree999@rrohio.com
John Dalberg (john_dd@hotmail.com) writes:
[quoted text, click to view] > I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server. > Right now I can only use a single box for both. > > I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with > some parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a > single CPU. > > My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB > or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@ ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu. > If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for > sql server and the other for everything else? Machine configurations is not my best game, but if you are going to have both SQL Server and web server on the same box, I would definitely go for two CPUs. (Or at least one CPU that is hyper-threaded.) As for SQL Server and parallel queries, yes, there is a potential problem. I have seen more than once, SQL Server being too optimistic about parallel query plans, and taken a plan with poor performance. What we usually do, when we run into these queries is to add the query hint OPTION (MAXDOP 1) which turns of parallellism for that query. A more definitive cure is to set the configuration option "Max degress of parllellism" to 1. Note that this is not the same as confining SQL Server to one CPU only, but that one single query can only take one processor. Two users executing different queries can still get one CPU each. Giving SQL Server only one CPU *may* be a good idea, if you expect the web server and the rest to need substantial amount of resources. But you could also get the effect that one processor is mainly idle, while the other is working around the clock. So my recommendation would be set "Max degrees of Parallelism" to 1 (Or to 2, if you have two hyper-threaded CPUs), but let SQL Server use both CPUs. Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for some editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this with Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game. -- Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
In article <Xns95A8BE037B8EAYazorman@127.0.0.1>, esquel@sommarskog.se
says... [quoted text, click to view] > Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for some > editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this with > Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game. I was told by the MS People in the Great Lakes MS Office that HT CPU's still count as 1 CPU for licensing. One other thing, unless he's using SBS, I was also told that a Web Server accessing a MS SQL Database, requires a CPU License on the Database server for each physical CPU the SQL server is permitted to use. I have always licensed our SQL Servers in CPU mode when being accessed by a web server using anonymous connections to the web server. -- -- spamfree999@rrohio.com
[quoted text, click to view] Erland Sommarskog wrote:
> John Dalberg (john_dd@hotmail.com) writes: > > I am planning to build a server to be used as a SQL Server and web server. > > Right now I can only use a single box for both. > > bob.mckenna@rbc.com > > I have read some threads were dual processors are having problems with > > some parallel queries and the suggestions of having sql server use a > > single CPU. > > > > My budget is limited so I am debating whether to get 2.6G dual xeon 533FSB > > or dual P4 800FSB (DRR@ ram) or stick with a speedy single cpu. > > If I get a dual cpu motherboard, is it a good idea to have 1 cpu used for > > sql server and the other for everything else? > > Machine configurations is not my best game, but if you are going to have > both SQL Server and web server on the same box, I would definitely go for > two CPUs. (Or at least one CPU that is hyper-threaded.) > > As for SQL Server and parallel queries, yes, there is a potential problem. > I have seen more than once, SQL Server being too optimistic about parallel > query plans, and taken a plan with poor performance. What we usually do, > when we run into these queries is to add the query hint OPTION (MAXDOP 1) > which turns of parallellism for that query. > > A more definitive cure is to set the configuration option "Max degress of > parllellism" to 1. Note that this is not the same as confining SQL Server > to one CPU only, but that one single query can only take one processor. Two > users executing different queries can still get one CPU each. > > Giving SQL Server only one CPU *may* be a good idea, if you expect the > web server and the rest to need substantial amount of resources. But you > could also get the effect that one processor is mainly idle, while the > other is working around the clock. > > So my recommendation would be set "Max degrees of Parallelism" to 1 (Or > to 2, if you have two hyper-threaded CPUs), but let SQL Server use both > CPUs. > > > Finally, there may be a licensing issue. I vaguely recall that for some > editions that you pay a license per processor, but please check this with > Microsoft. Licensing is definitely not my best game. > -- > Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se > > Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at > http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.asp
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
January 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |