I have a new install of Windows Server 2008SP2 Datacenter on a server with
16 six-core CPU(96 cores total). SQL server is only reporting 64 cores, not
the full 96 cores. I know SQL 2005 had an issue with this, but I thought
this was fixed in SQL 2008.

Is there a CU, hotfix or a configuration setting I am missing?

--
-----------------------------------------
William F. Kinsley
NextGen Healthcare Info. Sys. Inc.

SP2 or R2? You need the R2 version of Windows Server 2008 for the support
of more than 64 cores. For the rest, if you are already using R2, I don't
know.

--
Sylvain Lafontaine, ing.
MVP - Windows Live Platform
Email: sylvain2009 sylvainlafontaine com (fill the blanks, no spam please)
Independent consultant and remote programming for Access and SQL-Server
(French)


"William F. Kinsley" <Vapor (AT) nospam (DOT) nospam> wrote

yea, that's it, I installed SP2, not R2.

Thx


"Sylvain Lafontaine" <sylvainlafontaine2009 (AT) yahoo (DOT) ca> wrote

Yes R2 2008 is what you need in order to support more than 64 cores. R2 is
only out in CTP at the moment but you can find information here:
http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2008/en/us/r2.aspx


--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"William F. Kinsley" <Vapor (AT) nospam (DOT) nospam> wrote

Now I am getting confused, I thought the issues was with the OS, not SQL
server? The Microsoft website
(http://www.microsoft.com/sqlserver/2...s-compare.aspx) has
the max CPU for SQL 2008 Enterprise Edition as "OS Maximum".

Bill



"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam (AT) shadhawk (DOT) com> wrote

It is with both actually. The OS has to support it first but since the OS
didn't support more than 64 before SQL Server 2008 was released it wasn't
100% ready yet either. At the time that documentation was written the OS
maximum was 64. Bottom line is that SQL 2008 RTM does not have support for
more than 64 procs. I would be curious as to why you feel the need for so
many cores. Don't get me wrong I am not saying you don't need that many but
I deal with some of the largest sql server installations in the world and
you would be surprised at how many run extremely well with just 32 cores. If
you really need 96 cores then you might want to consider talking with the
SQL CAT team to as well.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"William F. Kinsley" <Vapor (AT) nospam (DOT) nospam> wrote

Our requirements are complex, but simply put: 10,000+ concurrent users, 2TB+
Database, 1 sec response time, high transaction rates, complex schema.

None of our servers are nearly this big, yet, but load requirements are
growing very quickly and we want to gain a better understanding of the
limits of our system and how it performs when stressed.


Bill



"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam (AT) shadhawk (DOT) com> wrote

While those numbers are nothing to sneeze at they are much more common these
days than most people think. Of course without knowing much more about the
app & db requirements anything goes but there is nothing there that I see
warrants even close to 96 cores. Most performance gains in SQL Server come
from a properly tuned schema and well thought out queries. Simply trying to
throw cores at performance issues vs. proper planning and tuning are usually
a lost cause in the long run not to mention the monetary cost of supporting
it. Especially if you need another identical server for HA or DR.


--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors