I have MS SQL 2000 Standard edition licensed in "per device" mode on a dual xeon. However the properties->Processor tab on EM only list 1 cpu (CPU 0) and has "use all available processors" selected and the use [#] is greyed out.
Anybody else experience this? Is it really using both processors? Or do I have some limited product key? I called MS tech support but they were like, "um that'll be $295 to open a support instance" <*click*>.
SQL 2000 Standard Ed. SP3a
Thanks!You sure your looking at the right box?
Even if they limited you, how would they know which CPU you wanted to use?
Let say you had a different process dedicated to CPU 0...|||first thing to look at is that your Windows actually sees both processors, if you added the processor after installing Windows you may be using the Uniprocessor kernel, in which case Windows and SQL Server would only see one proc... kind of hard to say without knowing more about your system
Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cpu. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
Friday, February 24, 2012
2005 slower than 2000?
Admittedly I'm evaluating 2005 in a virtual machine but I'm comparing it to
an older machine:
2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz Amd64's,
raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active.
2000 is on an older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
parameterized.
on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few thousand rows joining lots
of tables, varying by the selections made.
on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other software
variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats updated. tried
with both compatibility levels.
I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.br (br@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> Admittedly I'm evaluating 2005 in a virtual machine but I'm comparing it
> to an older machine:
> 2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz
> Amd64's, raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active. 2000 is on an
> older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
> A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
> parameterized. on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few
> thousand rows joining lots of tables, varying by the selections made.
> on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other
> software variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats
> updated. tried with both compatibility levels.
> I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.
Before you do that... The database on SQL 2005, is that a copy of the
database from SQL 2000? In such case, did you run UPDATE STATISTICS
WITH FULLSCAN on all table (or just sp_updatestats if you prefer)? When
you restore a database from SQL 2000, all statistics are invalidated,
this can be an important reason for difference in performance.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Did you install SQL Server Standard/Enterprise Edition or Express Edition?
Express edition is limited by design to 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 4 GB database
size.
There are server and database configuration settings that can impact
performance:
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
Analyze the execution plan and performance monitor logs to determine what
exactly is going on.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d... />
1_5pde.asp
http://www.informit.com/guides/cont...&seqNum=28&rl=1
BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C96E892-1713-4486-8DE6-B0E56AEF29C3@.microsoft.com...
> Admittedly I'm evaluating 2005 in a virtual machine but I'm comparing it
> to
> an older machine:
> 2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz
> Amd64's,
> raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active.
> 2000 is on an older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
> A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
> parameterized.
> on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few thousand rows joining
> lots
> of tables, varying by the selections made.
> on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other software
> variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats updated. tried
> with both compatibility levels.
> I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.
>|||Thanks guys,
It's the developer version. Roughly equivalent to standard.
The stats are updated.
I'm figuring I'll have to re-optimize for 2005, so I don't mind waiting for
a fix rev or two.
But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
"JT" wrote:
> Did you install SQL Server Standard/Enterprise Edition or Express Edition?
> Express edition is limited by design to 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 4 GB database
> size.
> There are server and database configuration settings that can impact
> performance:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
> Analyze the execution plan and performance monitor logs to determine what
> exactly is going on.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
n_1_5pde.asp
> http://www.informit.com/guides/cont...&seqNum=28&rl=1
> BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?
> "br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2C96E892-1713-4486-8DE6-B0E56AEF29C3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Sorry, missed that. Means one or two revisions to Sql2005, which I'm
considering to be Sql Server 9.
"JT" wrote:
> BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?|||Try testing again in an environment other than a virtual machine (MS Virtual
PC ?). There may be VM session settings limiting RAM and CPU usage. Also,
SQL Server is optimized to work directly with the OS and hardware, and a VM
session is an abstraction layer.
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C34254A-E671-4E1D-84BF-E586D5A74830@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks guys,
> It's the developer version. Roughly equivalent to standard.
> The stats are updated.
> I'm figuring I'll have to re-optimize for 2005, so I don't mind waiting
> for
> a fix rev or two.
> But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
> "JT" wrote:
>|||There are a lot of people using 2005 today with no broad based complaints
about performance. You are perhaps thinking that a future service pack will
include performance optimizations for a vitual machine environment? ;-)
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A3878EB-4E4B-491F-9C3B-5A81F2FC8510@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry, missed that. Means one or two revisions to Sql2005, which I'm
> considering to be Sql Server 9.
> "JT" wrote:
>|||True... ok, some w
end when I have a free morning I'll put it on a real
machine.
"JT" wrote:
> ...a VM session is an abstraction layer.
>
an older machine:
2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz Amd64's,
raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active.
2000 is on an older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
parameterized.
on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few thousand rows joining lots
of tables, varying by the selections made.
on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other software
variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats updated. tried
with both compatibility levels.
I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.br (br@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> Admittedly I'm evaluating 2005 in a virtual machine but I'm comparing it
> to an older machine:
> 2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz
> Amd64's, raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active. 2000 is on an
> older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
> A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
> parameterized. on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few
> thousand rows joining lots of tables, varying by the selections made.
> on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other
> software variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats
> updated. tried with both compatibility levels.
> I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.
Before you do that... The database on SQL 2005, is that a copy of the
database from SQL 2000? In such case, did you run UPDATE STATISTICS
WITH FULLSCAN on all table (or just sp_updatestats if you prefer)? When
you restore a database from SQL 2000, all statistics are invalidated,
this can be an important reason for difference in performance.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pr...oads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodin...ions/books.mspx|||Did you install SQL Server Standard/Enterprise Edition or Express Edition?
Express edition is limited by design to 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 4 GB database
size.
There are server and database configuration settings that can impact
performance:
http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
Analyze the execution plan and performance monitor logs to determine what
exactly is going on.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d... />
1_5pde.asp
http://www.informit.com/guides/cont...&seqNum=28&rl=1
BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2C96E892-1713-4486-8DE6-B0E56AEF29C3@.microsoft.com...
> Admittedly I'm evaluating 2005 in a virtual machine but I'm comparing it
> to
> an older machine:
> 2005 thinks it has 1Gb and 1 cpu on a host which has 2GB, 2 2.4Ghz
> Amd64's,
> raid0. it runs in boosted priority when active.
> 2000 is on an older single Amd64 2Ghz, 1Gb, single sata drive.
> A very ugly query built by selections on a web page is parsed and
> parameterized.
> on 2000 it runs in a couple seconds against a few thousand rows joining
> lots
> of tables, varying by the selections made.
> on 2005 it takes twice as long for the identical query. all other software
> variables are identical. the db is a copy from 2000. stats updated. tried
> with both compatibility levels.
> I'm thinking I'll wait for 9.1 or 9.2 before I make the move.
>|||Thanks guys,
It's the developer version. Roughly equivalent to standard.
The stats are updated.
I'm figuring I'll have to re-optimize for 2005, so I don't mind waiting for
a fix rev or two.
But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
"JT" wrote:
> Did you install SQL Server Standard/Enterprise Edition or Express Edition?
> Express edition is limited by design to 1 CPU, 1 GB RAM, and 4 GB database
> size.
> There are server and database configuration settings that can impact
> performance:
> http://www.sql-server-performance.c...ance_audit5.asp
> Analyze the execution plan and performance monitor logs to determine what
> exactly is going on.
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...>
n_1_5pde.asp
> http://www.informit.com/guides/cont...&seqNum=28&rl=1
> BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?
> "br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2C96E892-1713-4486-8DE6-B0E56AEF29C3@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Sorry, missed that. Means one or two revisions to Sql2005, which I'm
considering to be Sql Server 9.
"JT" wrote:
> BTY, what is "9.1 or 9.2" ?|||Try testing again in an environment other than a virtual machine (MS Virtual
PC ?). There may be VM session settings limiting RAM and CPU usage. Also,
SQL Server is optimized to work directly with the OS and hardware, and a VM
session is an abstraction layer.
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:9C34254A-E671-4E1D-84BF-E586D5A74830@.microsoft.com...
> Thanks guys,
> It's the developer version. Roughly equivalent to standard.
> The stats are updated.
> I'm figuring I'll have to re-optimize for 2005, so I don't mind waiting
> for
> a fix rev or two.
> But thanks for the links. I'll check them out.
> "JT" wrote:
>|||There are a lot of people using 2005 today with no broad based complaints
about performance. You are perhaps thinking that a future service pack will
include performance optimizations for a vitual machine environment? ;-)
"br" <br@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4A3878EB-4E4B-491F-9C3B-5A81F2FC8510@.microsoft.com...
> Sorry, missed that. Means one or two revisions to Sql2005, which I'm
> considering to be Sql Server 9.
> "JT" wrote:
>|||True... ok, some w
end when I have a free morning I'll put it on a realmachine.
"JT" wrote:
> ...a VM session is an abstraction layer.
>
Sunday, February 19, 2012
2005 Max CPU's
I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used by
SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is the
maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is this
true?
Thanks!
ChrisChris,
CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
RLF
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
>of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is this
>true?
> Thanks!
> Chris
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight into
the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition has
4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Chris,
> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
> RLF
> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
>>of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>|||Hi Chris
Yes, SQL 2005 Std Edn definitely uses all 8 CPUs. The restriction is only
for physical CPUs, not logical so it's possible to have 4 Quad Core CPUs
with 16 logical all working under SQL 2005 Std Edn
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23jBFhMgXIHA.4476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight
> into the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
> Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
> has 4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
> The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
> http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Chris,
>> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
>> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
>> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
>> RLF
>> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only
>>4 of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>>
>|||Sorry. (But I thought the analogy carried through just fine.) - RLF
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23jBFhMgXIHA.4476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight
> into the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
> Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
> has 4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
> The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
> http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Chris,
>> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
>> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
>> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
>> RLF
>> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only
>>4 of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>>
>
SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is the
maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is this
true?
Thanks!
ChrisChris,
CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
RLF
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
>of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is this
>true?
> Thanks!
> Chris
>|||Russell,
Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight into
the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition has
4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
"Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Chris,
> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
> RLF
> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only 4
>>of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>|||Hi Chris
Yes, SQL 2005 Std Edn definitely uses all 8 CPUs. The restriction is only
for physical CPUs, not logical so it's possible to have 4 Quad Core CPUs
with 16 logical all working under SQL 2005 Std Edn
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
http://blogs.sqlserver.org.au/blogs/greg_linwood
Benchmark your query performance
http://www.SQLBenchmarkPro.com
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23jBFhMgXIHA.4476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight
> into the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
> Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
> has 4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
> The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
> http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Chris,
>> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
>> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
>> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
>> RLF
>> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only
>>4 of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>>
>|||Sorry. (But I thought the analogy carried through just fine.) - RLF
"Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23jBFhMgXIHA.4476@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Russell,
> Thanks for the quick response. Your answer gives me some more insight
> into the Express edition but I am looking specifically at SQL Server 2005
> Standard Edition. If a machine running SQL Server 2005 Standard Edition
> has 4 Dual Core Processors, will SQL Server use all 8 logical CPUs?
> The following link contains a discussion that is asking the same question:
> http://www.codeprof.com/dev-archive/120/19-95-1201327.shtm
>
> "Russell Fields" <russellfields@.nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23UK7czfXIHA.484@.TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Chris,
>> CPUs are physical chips, whether single, dual, or quad core. In a
>> conversation from a few months ago Jens K. Suessmeyer pointed to the
>> explanation about SQL Server Express over the same issue:
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/914278/en-us
>> RLF
>> "Chris Gallelli" <Chris.Gallelli@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:uQ25vsfXIHA.4808@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I need some clarification on the maximum number of CPUs that will be used
>>by SQL Server Standard Edition. The documentation states that 4 CPUs is
>>the maximum for Standard. If those 4 CPUs are dual core, will SQL Server
>>utilize all 8 logical CPUs? I read some posts that indicated that only
>>4 of the 8 logical CPUs will be used by SQL Server Standard Edition. Is
>>this true?
>> Thanks!
>> Chris
>>
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)