![]() Running SQL Server (or any DBMS) on a single CPU can cause all kinds of problems since the capability for concurrent operations is vastly limited. Having said all that, if the choice is one CPU or more than one CPU, always go with more than one. If you decide you need a lot of parallel processing muscle, and decide you need 32 cores for the task at hand, going with the fastest cores will pay dividends in reduced processing time. In other words, you might save $10,000 in hardware costs, but you'll lose an extra $50,000 in licensing. however, moving from 8 cores to 16 cores with SQL Server Enterprise Edition is likely to cost an extra $60,000 USD in licensing fees. ![]() The hardware cost savings of using the 2.2Ghz processors over the 4.4Ghz processors is likely to be a maximum of about $10,000 USD (for a typical Xeon-based two processor machine). In other words, don't think of 16 x 2.2Ghz processors being the same as 8 x 4.4Ghz processors. Increase the core count as required, but never do that by reducing core speed. Having the fastest possible core speed is never going to be a problem. Once you take into consideration SQL Server's per-core licensing structure, it makes sense to always go with the fastest processor speed available, regardless of workload type, whether OLTP or analytics. It's a great resource on how to choose a processor for SQL Server. See Processor Selection for SQL Server by Glenn Berry. ![]() The licensing math on that proves the point at ~$7,500 USD per core for Enterprise Edition.Ä«uying the correct hardware can pay for itself in reduced licensing costs. ![]() The general rule of thumb is keep the core count as low as possible, and the processor speed as high as possible. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |