Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded
"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and o
r
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, w
e
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In mos
t
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the serv
er
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability f
or
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their applicati
on
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think tha
t
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:

> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)

> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
>
your[vbcol=seagreen]
an[vbcol=seagreen]
service[vbcol=seagreen]
slower,[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
mission-critical[vbcol=seagreen]
>sql

Adding a second processor

Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not "coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, JeffOutside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
level, if you prefer).
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
Hello,
We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
"coded"
to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
only runs on the client end, not on the server.
The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
or
the application?
The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
application.
--
Thanks, Jeff|||I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it, we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
that, you're fine.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
"Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
we
don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our vendor
told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The mobo
on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs on
the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
they are not going to support us either way unless we get another contract.
My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore the
database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
--
Thanks, Jeff
"Tom Moreau" wrote:
> Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> most
> cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because your
> workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve an
> individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to service
> the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run slower,
> but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> server
> level, if you prefer).
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> ..
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> Hello,
> We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> for
> having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> "coded"
> to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> application
> only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle the
> processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> that
> by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data and
> or
> the application?
> The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and it
> is a case management system for a law firm. This is our mission-critical
> application.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>|||"Tom Moreau" <tom@.dont.spam.me.cips.ca> wrote in message
news:uzy8rPbeGHA.5016@.TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> The only real issue I see is that of licensing. If you go with a per-CPU
> license, you will have to spend some change to do the upgrade. Other than
> that, you're fine.
I'll second this.
And second the opinion that the original vendor is full of it. :-)
> --
> Tom
> ----
> Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> SQL Server MVP
> Toronto, ON Canada
> "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7CA5419B-884D-4D51-8B1C-3DEE16B291F1@.microsoft.com...
> I do realize the benefits of a second processor in SQL and that's just it,
> we
> don't want to limit ourselves to a single processor. We purchased a new
> server recently and only purchased one processor because of what our
vendor
> told us. It didn't make any sense to me then and it doesn't now. The
mobo
> on that server is setup for dual-processors. Since the application runs
on
> the client, I didn't understand why they would tell us that.
> More importantly, we no longer have a service contract with that vendor so
> they are not going to support us either way unless we get another
contract.
> My thought is that the worst that can happen is that we have to restore
the
> database off of a backup and pull the second processor out.
> --
> Thanks, Jeff
>
> "Tom Moreau" wrote:
> > Outside of the fact that your vendor doesn't support it, I really see no
> > reason why you would want to limit yourself to just one processor. In
> > most
> > cases, SQL Server would run faster with more CPU's. This is because
your
> > workload is distributed across all of the CPU's. Thus, if you have 100
> > concurrent queries, 50 would run on one and 50 would run on the other -
> > ignoring parallelism. However, in most cases parallelism would improve
an
> > individual query's performance, since both CPU's would be used to
service
> > the query. In some cases, parallelism makes specific queries run
slower,
> > but you can turn parallelism off on a per-query basis (or even at the
> > server
> > level, if you prefer).
> >
> > --
> > Tom
> >
> > ----
> > Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
> > SQL Server MVP
> > Toronto, ON Canada
> > ..
> > "Jeff" <Jeff@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:56410EBD-043F-4AC4-870B-652141840545@.microsoft.com...
> > Hello,
> >
> > We use a client/server application from our vendor running on SQL 2000,
> > which runs on a Windows 2003 Server in an ADS domain. The server is
> > currently only running a single Xeon processor and it has the capability
> > for
> > having 2 processors. Our vendor claims that their application is not
> > "coded"
> > to run on a dual-processor machine (a bunch of bull?), but their
> > application
> > only runs on the client end, not on the server.
> >
> > The way I see it, it is Windows and SQL that have to be able to handle
the
> > processor, which we all know they can certainly do. Does anyone think
> > that
> > by adding a second processor, we would be doing any damage to our data
and
> > or
> > the application?
> >
> > The application is Time Matters Enterprise 5.0 (sr2), by LexisNexis and
it
> > is a case management system for a law firm. This is our
mission-critical
> > application.
> >
> > --
> > Thanks, Jeff
> >
> >
>

Adding 2nd Processor

I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that runs
SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes I
need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
recognize the second processor?
The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
Thanks,
GregThe hard bit is getting NT4 to pick it up :-)
As Keith says , once that's done then SQL will pick it up automatically
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"Gregory Dover" <gdovernospam@.bolingbrook.com> wrote in message
news:056401c35b8f$5b65b930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that runs
SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes I
need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
recognize the second processor?
The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
Thanks,
Greg|||Would this also be true for an OS of Windows 2000
Professional?
>--Original Message--
>SQL Server should see it after you get NT to recognize
the second processor.
>--
>Keith, SQL Server MVP
>"Gregory Dover" <gdovernospam@.bolingbrook.com> wrote in
message news:056401c35b8f$5b65b930$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
>> I'm preparing to add a second cpu to our server that
runs
>> SQL Server 7 database software. Are there any changes
I
>> need to make to SQL 7 platform to get database to
>> recognize the second processor?
>> The OS is Windows NT Server 4.0 SP6a
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Greg
>.
>sql

Adding 2nd Processor

I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
after I add the processor.In article <2b8801c3747d$90def250$a101280a@.phx.gbl>,
dcoleman31p@.sbcglobal.net said...
> I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
> MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
> is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
> after I add the processor.
If you have a per processor license you will have to buy another.|||What OS are you using? If it is NT4.0 you need to upgrade the OS kernel to
the multi-processor one..
--
--
Mike Epprecht
Epprecht Consulting (PTY) LTD
Johannesburg, South Africa
Mobile: +27-82-552-0268
Specialist SQL Server Solutions and Consulting
"Del" <dcoleman31p@.sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:2b8801c3747d$90def250$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
> I want to add a second processor to the server, which has
> MS SQL7 Server running on it, and want to know if there
> is anything I need to do to SQL7 Server either before or
> after I add the processor.|||Hi,
Providing the OS can see the processor, SQL will use it, there should be
nothing required from SQL,
assuming that the affinity mask has not been set (by default this is not
set)
Regards,
Clive Challinor [MSFT]
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

adding 2 or more vitural machines for sql server.

hi,
the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
processor(s) and Disk IO?
What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
instances in one sql server?
1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
additional one.
THnaksIf you create two virtual servers, then you need ram for two operating
systems as well as SQL Server. If you create two named instance on one
virtual server, then ram is needed for one operating system, and two sql
servers.
--
Mohit K. Gupta
B.Sc. CS, Minor Japanese
MCTS: SQL Server 2005
"mecn" wrote:
> hi,
> the virtual sql servers are sharing the same windwos RAM memory, utilize
> processor(s) and Disk IO?
> What's is the diff between creating virtual sql servers and adding more sql
> instances in one sql server?
> 1. each Virtual server need sql and windows licenses. sql instanses no need
> additional one.
> THnaks
>
>
>
>

Add second dual core processor

If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
ThanksYou don't have to reinstall SQL Server. for this. You will have to purchase
an extra license for the second CPU.
--
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Kelley" <tkelley@.company.com> wrote in message
news:e0FzwhgxGHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
Thanks

Add second dual core processor

If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
ThanksYou don't have to reinstall SQL Server. for this. You will have to purchase
an extra license for the second CPU.
Tom
----
Thomas A. Moreau, BSc, PhD, MCSE, MCDBA
SQL Server MVP
Toronto, ON Canada
.
"Tim Kelley" <tkelley@.company.com> wrote in message
news:e0FzwhgxGHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
If we have a SQL 2005 server with one dual core processor and we want to add
a second dual core processor, can this be accomplished without re-installing
SQL 2005? We are using the per CPU licensing model.
Thanks