Multi Processors - SQL2000

I've got a server with 4 processors, is it possible to only allow SQL2000 to use 1 or 2 of them??
Cheers
Colingloverc7,

Use SQL Server Processor TAB to specify the processor you want the instance of SQL Server to use.

[ ]'s

multi processors

I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third processors
seem to have most of the utilization.
I assume that you have configured SQL Server to use all processors via
sp_configure and the affinity mask. SQL Server will split and distribute
the query load as it sees fit. You might not end up with a perfect
distribution of processor utilization.
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask'
/*
to use all processors:
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask' , 0
*/
Keith
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.
|||There can be several reasons. First, all threads do not require the same
amount of processor resource so there will always be some imbalance.
Second, Windows binds physical processors to service particular IO cards, so
your NIC and Disk subsystems are likely bound to the second and third
processors. On very-multi-processor systems (16-way and up) excluding
certain processors from SQL because of this OS binding can improve
performance. On a four-way box, you are best to leave things as is.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.

Multi Processors

Hello, my client has a SQL Server with 4 processors. We don't posess such a
beast in our office and I wonder if there's anything I need to do to take
advantage of this extra processing power available to my client, or will SQL
Server take care of this for me?
Thanks, Kevin.Thanks Steve, that's what I thought. It is SQL Server 2000.
Kevin.
"steve" <steve@.mail.net> wrote in message
news:065901c360cd$84347b60$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Kevin, if you're using SQL 2000 - then SQL Server will
> take care of this automatically...
>
> >--Original Message--
> >Hello, my client has a SQL Server with 4 processors. We
> don't posess such a
> >beast in our office and I wonder if there's anything I
> need to do to take
> >advantage of this extra processing power available to my
> client, or will SQL
> >Server take care of this for me?
> >
> >Thanks, Kevin.
> >
> >
> >.
> >|||4 processors works perfectly find with Standard Edition.
--
Hal Berenson, SQL Server MVP
True Mountain Group LLC
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:uxkQG6MYDHA.1644@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> As long as they are running Enterprise Edition of SQL Server and at least
> Adv Server for the OS you needn't do anything else. SQL Server will
utilize
> the processors all on it's own.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "Kevin Munro" <kevin_remove8839421@.c3amulet.com> wrote in message
> news:3f38d780$0$46013$65c69314@.mercury.nildram.net...
> > Hello, my client has a SQL Server with 4 processors. We don't posess
such
> a
> > beast in our office and I wonder if there's anything I need to do to
take
> > advantage of this extra processing power available to my client, or will
> SQL
> > Server take care of this for me?
> >
> > Thanks, Kevin.
> >
> >
>

multi processors

I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third processors
seem to have most of the utilization.I assume that you have configured SQL Server to use all processors via
sp_configure and the affinity mask. SQL Server will split and distribute
the query load as it sees fit. You might not end up with a perfect
distribution of processor utilization.
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask'
/*
to use all processors:
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask' , 0
*/
--
Keith
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.|||There can be several reasons. First, all threads do not require the same
amount of processor resource so there will always be some imbalance.
Second, Windows binds physical processors to service particular IO cards, so
your NIC and Disk subsystems are likely bound to the second and third
processors. On very-multi-processor systems (16-way and up) excluding
certain processors from SQL because of this OS binding can improve
performance. On a four-way box, you are best to leave things as is.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.

multi processors

I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third processors
seem to have most of the utilization.I assume that you have configured SQL Server to use all processors via
sp_configure and the affinity mask. SQL Server will split and distribute
the query load as it sees fit. You might not end up with a perfect
distribution of processor utilization.
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask'
/*
to use all processors:
exec sp_configure 'affinity mask' , 0
*/
Keith
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.|||There can be several reasons. First, all threads do not require the same
amount of processor resource so there will always be some imbalance.
Second, Windows binds physical processors to service particular IO cards, so
your NIC and Disk subsystems are likely bound to the second and third
processors. On very-multi-processor systems (16-way and up) excluding
certain processors from SQL because of this OS binding can improve
performance. On a four-way box, you are best to leave things as is.
Geoff N. Hiten
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Senior Database Administrator
Careerbuilder.com
I support the Professional Association for SQL Server
www.sqlpass.org
"Ruth Henderson" <Ruth Henderson@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2BB0F14B-CA24-4EB4-B120-F88044A2B55F@.microsoft.com...
> I have a quad processor machine not running hyperthreading. I am also
> running sQL enterprise additions. I would like to understand why the
> processing load is not distrubuted evenly. The second and third
processors
> seem to have most of the utilization.sql

multi processor server

Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors or
do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to take
advantage of memory over 4G?
Thanks,
Dan D.
Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism when
appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memory.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
> Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors
> or
> do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
> take
> advantage of memory over 4G?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.
|||We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the 8
processors?
Thanks Andrew,
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
> commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
> index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism when
> appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
> in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memory.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
processors but not 8 physical processors.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the
> 8
> processors?
> Thanks Andrew,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
|||Thanks.
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
> processors but not 8 physical processors.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...
>
>

multi processor server

Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors or
do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to take
advantage of memory over 4G?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism when
appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memory.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
> Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors
> or
> do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
> take
> advantage of memory over 4G?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the 8
processors?
Thanks Andrew,
--
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
> commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
> index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism wh
en
> appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
> in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memor
y.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
processors but not 8 physical processors.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the
> 8
> processors?
> Thanks Andrew,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>|||Thanks.
--
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:

> Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
> processors but not 8 physical processors.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...
>
>

multi processor server

Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors or
do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to take
advantage of memory over 4G?
Thanks,
--
Dan D.Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism when
appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memory.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
> Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors
> or
> do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
> take
> advantage of memory over 4G?
> Thanks,
> --
> Dan D.|||We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the 8
processors?
Thanks Andrew,
--
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not all
> commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing an
> index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism when
> appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of memory
> in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for memory.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
> > Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple processors
> > or
> > do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
> > take
> > advantage of memory over 4G?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --
> > Dan D.
>
>|||Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
processors but not 8 physical processors.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...
> We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the
> 8
> processors?
> Thanks Andrew,
> --
> Dan D.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
>> Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not
>> all
>> commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing
>> an
>> index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism
>> when
>> appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of
>> memory
>> in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for
>> memory.
>> --
>> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>>
>> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
>> > Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple
>> > processors
>> > or
>> > do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
>> > take
>> > advantage of memory over 4G?
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > --
>> > Dan D.
>>|||Thanks.
--
Dan D.
"Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> Not 8 individual processors. It will use 4 dual core or 4 Hyper-Threaded
> processors but not 8 physical processors.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8254B71A-D71B-404B-BE48-6521820989C5@.microsoft.com...
> > We have a box with 8 processors. Will the standard edition of 2005 use the
> > 8
> > processors?
> >
> > Thanks Andrew,
> > --
> > Dan D.
> >
> >
> > "Andrew J. Kelly" wrote:
> >
> >> Std edition of SQL Server 2000 can use up to 4 processors although not
> >> all
> >> commands will use them in parallel. For instance Creating or reindexing
> >> an
> >> index will not use multiple processors. But queries can use parallelism
> >> when
> >> appropriate. You do need Enterprise Edition to use more than 2GB of
> >> memory
> >> in 2000. IN 2005 though Std edition can use up to the OS maximum for
> >> memory.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >>
> >>
> >> "Dan D." <DanD@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:AA36EAB7-E084-4DBB-A9FC-D79204FA5A0D@.microsoft.com...
> >> > Can the Standard edition of SS2000 take advantage of multiple
> >> > processors
> >> > or
> >> > do we need the enterprise edition? Do we need the enterprise edition to
> >> > take
> >> > advantage of memory over 4G?
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > --
> >> > Dan D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>

Multi processor OS restriction?

Hi, Ive been told this, but I hope it is NOT true. I have an sql
server2000 installation running on a server that has four processors.
It is on a active network but is not the domain controller so
essentially it is fully dedicated to servicing the needs of sql
server, (a bit of browsing, a bit of ms Office, but almost wholly
dedicated to sqlserver. Now, the big question, why, when the server
properties have been set to utilize all four processors, can any one
job never get more than 25% of cpu time? I can launch multiple
instance of QA and run the same job on each one and that will utilise
more and more cpu time, but if you launch multile QA windows from
within one insance of QA, you can NEVER get more than 25% CPU
utilisation. Now i have to run a job (FTS is a good example,
re-indexing lots of db's another, or even a huge query with multiple
ufd's on computed cols which I hoped would grab lots of CPU time that
they need, but no. So do I have to live with this or can I tell either
windows or sql server to grab more cpu when it want to ie use my spare
CPU capacity more efficiently or am i working on a misguided premise
and 25% per job is your lot?

DMAC>>Hi, Ive been told this, but I hope it is NOT true. I have an sql
>>server2000 installation running on a server that has four processors.
>>It is on a active network but is not the domain controller so
>>essentially it is fully dedicated to servicing the needs of sql
>>server, (a bit of browsing, a bit of ms Office, but almost wholly
>>dedicated to sqlserver. Now, the big question, why, when the server
>>properties have been set to utilize all four processors, can any one
>>job never get more than 25% of cpu time?
MSSQL can utilize 'parallelism' to make use of multi processors. But
it doesn't work half the time. Unless you have a single user, it is
better for MSSQL to save those other processors for other SPIDS.

>>I can launch multiple
>>instance of QA and run the same job on each one and that will utilise
>>more and more cpu time, but if you launch multile QA windows from
>>within one insance of QA, you can NEVER get more than 25% CPU
>>utilisation. Now i have to run a job (FTS is a good example,
>>re-indexing lots of db's another, or even a huge query with multiple
>>ufd's on computed cols which I hoped would grab lots of CPU time that
>>they need, but no. So do I have to live with this or can I tell
either
>>windows or sql server to grab more cpu when it want to ie use my
spare
>>CPU capacity more efficiently or am i working on a misguided premise
>>and 25% per job is your lot?
What's FTS & UFDs? User defined function?|||The SQL Server optimizer will generate a parallel plan only when it makes
sense to do so and the current server workload permits it. Many queries
will not benefit from a parallel plan. In practice, parallelism can be a
symptom of needed indexes or poorly formulated query.

> I can launch multiple
> instance of QA and run the same job on each one and that will utilise
> more and more cpu time, but if you launch multile QA windows from
> within one insance of QA, you can NEVER get more than 25% CPU
> utilisation.

This is not consistent with my experience. For example, I see both
processors fully used on my dual-cpu box by running the following query from
within the same QA instance. Do you get similar results?

USE master
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM sysobjects a
CROSS JOIN sysobjects b
CROSS JOIN sysobjects c
CROSS JOIN sysobjects d
GO

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

"DMAC" <drmcl@.drmcl.free-online.co.uk> wrote in message
news:462ac9a0.0501180705.4f2c5be7@.posting.google.c om...
> Hi, Ive been told this, but I hope it is NOT true. I have an sql
> server2000 installation running on a server that has four processors.
> It is on a active network but is not the domain controller so
> essentially it is fully dedicated to servicing the needs of sql
> server, (a bit of browsing, a bit of ms Office, but almost wholly
> dedicated to sqlserver. Now, the big question, why, when the server
> properties have been set to utilize all four processors, can any one
> job never get more than 25% of cpu time? I can launch multiple
> instance of QA and run the same job on each one and that will utilise
> more and more cpu time, but if you launch multile QA windows from
> within one insance of QA, you can NEVER get more than 25% CPU
> utilisation. Now i have to run a job (FTS is a good example,
> re-indexing lots of db's another, or even a huge query with multiple
> ufd's on computed cols which I hoped would grab lots of CPU time that
> they need, but no. So do I have to live with this or can I tell either
> windows or sql server to grab more cpu when it want to ie use my spare
> CPU capacity more efficiently or am i working on a misguided premise
> and 25% per job is your lot?
> DMAC|||Thanks Dan,

Your query did indeed put all four processors into overdrive, (took me
a while to cancel it cos I could not get my mouse click over the wire)
so my problem probably lies with your first suggestion about poorly
formed queries. Is there any mechanism to influence the optimiser or
thread selection to have my one really bad query utilise its own
processor( or just generally so that I can keep developement to its own
cpu/thread combo), leaving everthing else to utilize the other
processors, ie why did sql server immediately grap all the cpu time from
your query?

Cheers

*** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!|||> Is there any mechanism to influence the optimiser or
> thread selection to have my one really bad query utilise its own
> processor( or just generally so that I can keep developement to its own
> cpu/thread combo), leaving everthing else to utilize the other
> processors,

You can specify a MAXDOP hint to limit parallelism to the specified number
of processors: for a particular query:

USE master
SELECT COUNT(*)
FROM sysobjects a
CROSS JOIN sysobjects b
CROSS JOIN sysobjects c
CROSS JOIN sysobjects d
OPTION (MAXDOP 1)
GO

You can also adjust the server-wide setting with the 'max degree of
parallelism' configuration option. On a server with 4 or more processors, I
usually use this option to specify fewer processors than are available (e.g.
3) so that a single query won't monopolize CPU resources.

> ie why did sql server immediately grap all the cpu time from
> your query?

When SQL Server determines a query can benefit from parallelism, it
considers the current server workload and adjusts the number of parallel
threads accordingly. The optimizer may choose to use a single thread or
fewer processors when the machine is busy and a more aggressive plan when
not currently busy.

It's a good practice to segregate development and production on different
servers when possible.

--
Hope this helps.

Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP

<DMAC@.devdex.com> wrote in message news:41ef7c7f$1_2@.127.0.0.1...
> Thanks Dan,
> Your query did indeed put all four processors into overdrive, (took me
> a while to cancel it cos I could not get my mouse click over the wire)
> so my problem probably lies with your first suggestion about poorly
> formed queries. Is there any mechanism to influence the optimiser or
> thread selection to have my one really bad query utilise its own
> processor( or just generally so that I can keep developement to its own
> cpu/thread combo), leaving everthing else to utilize the other
> processors, ie why did sql server immediately grap all the cpu time from
> your query?
> Cheers
>
> *** Sent via Developersdex http://www.developersdex.com ***
> Don't just participate in USENET...get rewarded for it!

multi processor licensing

I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible to
any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
Would only one of the processors have access to the OS??
TIA!!!
You would have to remove 3 processors from the machine. Or use some setting in the BIOS so that the
operating system only sees one of the processors.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Qyl" <Qyl@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2071336-12AE-4CA4-9E2A-F6A6F2659496@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
> processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
> That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
> Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
> A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible to
> any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
> What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
> Would only one of the processors have access to the OS??
> TIA!!!
>
>
|||Have you considered Server + CAL licensing instead? Processor licensing
is required if this is for a web server but otherwise CAL licensing may
save you money.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
sql

multi processor licensing

I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible to
any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
Would only one of the processors have access to the OS'?
TIA!!!You would have to remove 3 processors from the machine. Or use some setting
in the BIOS so that the
operating system only sees one of the processors.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Qyl" <Qyl@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2071336-12AE-4CA4-9E2A-F6A6F2659496@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
> processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
> That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
> Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
> A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible t
o
> any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
> What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
> Would only one of the processors have access to the OS'?
> TIA!!!
>
>|||Have you considered Server + CAL licensing instead? Processor licensing
is required if this is for a web server but otherwise CAL licensing may
save you money.
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

multi processor licensing

I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible to
any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
Would only one of the processors have access to the OS'?
TIA!!!You would have to remove 3 processors from the machine. Or use some setting in the BIOS so that the
operating system only sees one of the processors.
--
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Qyl" <Qyl@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C2071336-12AE-4CA4-9E2A-F6A6F2659496@.microsoft.com...
>I have a server with 4 processors. I was looking at buying SQL 2000 1
> processor, but since I have 4 processors would I need to get 4 copies?
> That would be a little pricey! The MS FAQ Site says:
> Q. Do I have to license all of the processors in a server?
> A. You only have to acquire licenses for processors that are accessible to
> any copy of the operating system upon which SQL Server 2000 is installed.
> What does this mean? I don't know a lot about multi-processor servers.
> Would only one of the processors have access to the OS'?
> TIA!!!
>
>|||Have you considered Server + CAL licensing instead? Processor licensing
is required if this is for a web server but otherwise CAL licensing may
save you money.
--
David Portas
SQL Server MVP
--

MSSQL/Server setup/running issue/question...

i have a client with a windows 2003 server with 4 processors & 32 GB RAM, then MSSQL 2000 SP3. our software seems to run fine on it until the Task Manager shows the MSSQL using 1.7GB of RAM. At this point the whole system seems to slow down to a snails pace. Any ideas as to why 1.7GB and it never goes over that amount no matter how much activity i run on it. Restart mssql and everything seems to run good up until we see the 1.7GB again.Quite simple: The server is installed with 32-bit edition of the OS and SQL Server 2000. You can increase the memory usage of SQL server to approx 2.7GB by using the /3GB switch in boot.ini, or use AWE to use memory above 4GB, but I won't recommend it since it works more or less like himem.sys and emm386 in the old days. What you should do is really reinstall the server, using 64-bit edition of both the OS and SQL Server software. Unless there is some piece of software or hardware which is not supported in the 64-bit edition.