sql server (alternate): SQL 2000 Parallelism - is it worth it? -- sql server (alternate)

You're in the

sql server (alternate)

group:

SQL 2000 Parallelism - is it worth it?

kev NO[at]SPAM earlshilton.com
6/28/2005 7:49:42 AM

sql server (alternate):

Hi,

I have a sql 2000 server with 8 processors, server settings are as
default. I read on Technet that it is good practise to remove the
highest no. processors from being used for parallelism, corresponding
to the no. of NICs in the server. One of our 3rd party developers has
recommended only allowing one processor to be used as there is a
performance hit by the server working out which processor to use. Does
anyone have a definitive answer to this? I suspect he's wrong but I'd
like some hard evidence if possible, thanks.

Kev.

Re: SQL 2000 Parallelism - is it worth it?

Stu
6/28/2005 11:43:40 AM

I have no hard evidence as to this, but if you are working with
hyperthreaded processors (e.g. Xeons), then parallelism may impact you
since SQL Server will attempt to use a single physical processer as two
virtual processors sharing the same L2 cache. Kevin Kline mentioned
this in his presentation at DevTeach this year.

Re: SQL 2000 Parallelism - is it worth it?

Erland Sommarskog
6/28/2005 9:41:46 PM

(kev@earlshilton.com) writes:
[quoted text, click to view]

In fact, it is not uncommon to see SQL Server pick a parallel plan
which is considerably slower than a non-parallel plan. However, I don't
think turning of parallelism entirely is really a good thing. There
are probably cases where you parallelism can help you to speed up
queries as well.

However, if you processors are hyperthreaded, you set "Max degree of
parallelism" to be at most 8, that is the number of physical processors.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at

Re: SQL 2000 Parallelism - is it worth it?

Gert-Jan Strik
6/28/2005 9:48:57 PM

The whole idea behind parallelism is to finish sooner by using several
CPU's, so the story that it would in fact slow down individual queries
doesn't make any sense. And the parallelism threshold should prevent
this for queries that have a "obvious" query plan.

Also, without parallelism, SQL-Server also has to decide which CPU
should execute the query plan...

Gert-Jan

[quoted text, click to view]

Got something to say? Click here to post a reply to this thread.

Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.

View other messages in the sql server (alternate) group.

View Other Months
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