How Many CPUs for Microsoft's SQL Server?

adrian asks: "I've been wrestling with this problem some time now. I'm looking to buy a new machine to act as a SQL server. Unfortunately, we have to use M$ SQL Server 2000 and the per CPU unlimited licensing is very expensive. My question is this: Is there a benefit to running 4 slower CPUs as opposed to running 2 faster CPUs on a MS SQL box? I've found some people seem to think having more processors is better for SQL server... But, getting only two CPUs is certainly cheaper for licensing. Will performance suffer even if the two CPUs are faster? I've searched high and low using google and have yet to find any good hard numbers or benchmarks. Take these machines as an example: A quad PIII Xeon 550Mhz/512k cache box versus a dual P4 Xeon 2Ghz/512k cache box. The P4 machine would be more expensive, but we would save about $10,000 on licensing. And I know a 2Ghz P4 wouldn't be as fast as a 2Ghz PIII (if it existed) but yet I still want to think the dual P4 rig would be faster. The machines I am looking at are both IBM boxes with the same RAID and disk configs, 4 gigs of RAM, etc. Maybe some Slashdot. readers, who have experience with similar situations, could shed some light on this topic?"

Comments

system requirements?

[tps12]

Doesn't it tell you on the back of the box?

Four

[bwt]

Q: How many CPUs does it take to run MS SQL Server

A: Four, one to hold the light bulb and three to turn the ladder.

Dear Slashdot,

[zulux]

I'm going to shoot myself in the foot - should I use four small bullets or two larger ones? The larger ones as cheeper per shot, but I've been told, if you're a lousy shot that you need the four small ones to make sure that you at least hit your target?

Any thoughts?

Re:Dear Slashdot,

[highcaffeine]

Try this version instead, it follows the incredible verbosity of the original question better:

I've been wrestling with this problem for some time now. I'm looking to shoot myself in the foot using some sort of firearm. I will probably use a pistol or revolver, as I believe that will be easier to handle as I assume I will be pointing directly downward (unless I decide to shoot myself in the foot while in bed). Unfortunately, the pain that I hear may result could prevent me from possibly being able to fire more than a couple rounds. My question is this: Is there a real benefit from using four smaller bullets as opposed to using two larger bullets when I shoot myself in the foot? I've found some people seem to think that a 9mm round will be more effective for this use... But, purchasing two .38 rounds appears to be cheaper than four 9mm rounds. Will the effectiveness of shooting myself in the foot suffer if the two .38 rounds are used, even if they are larger? I've searched high and low using google and have yet to find someone else who has collected any data on this matter. Take these firearm/ammunition combinations as an example: A revolver with two .38 rounds versus a pistol with four 9mm rounds. The revolver would be more expensive, because I am limiting myself to a model which is not used very frequently and is slightly more difficult to find readily available. I would also have to purchase a full box of ammunition even though I am only considering using two rounds (I don't know how to ask the clerks for only two rounds -- but that's another Ask Slashdot), thus inflating the price/use ratio. And I know a .38 round wouldn't have the spread of a 5 gauge buckshot round (if it existed) for a shotgun, although this comment has almost no relevance to my question (and makes a comparison to a product that doesn't even exist, nor will ever), but yet I still want to think it would be more effective. The firearms I am looking at are both manufactured by Colt and have the same basic features. Maybe some Slashdot readers, who have shot their own feet, could shed some light on this topic?

Re:Q: How many CPUs does it take to run MS SQL Ser

[Dahan]

Damn 2-minute post refractory period.

Uh, posting to slashdot shouldn't get you that excited...