SQL Server Performance

Quad Core And SQL 2000 Std Sp3

Discussion in 'Performance Tuning for Hardware Configurations' started by mcosy, Sep 4, 2007.

  1. mcosy New Member

    Hi,
    I'm planing to buy new SQl Server and got this confusion please help.
    With 2 x Quadcore Processers will help to improve the SQl Server 2000 Std Edition?
    Is there CPU limitation on SQL 2000 Std? How Sql2000 See these 8 CPU's or 2 CPU's?
    Adding 8GB RAM is worth to put?
    OR better to upgrade to Enterprise?
  2. ghemant Moderator

    Hi,
    SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition can see only 2 GB RAM,so even if you have 8 GB of RAM you can not utilize it.
    SQL Server 2000 SE can support upto 4 processor, for references refer http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa933149(SQL.80).aspx or Maximum Capacity specification topic in BOL.
    Upgrading to Enterprise edition *depends* upon your environment requirement and budget, and yes don't forgot to update your box with latest sp and hotfix/cumulative patch.
    Regards
  3. satya Moderator

  4. merrillaldrich New Member

    [quote user="mcosy"]
    Hi,
    I'm planing to buy new SQl Server and got this confusion please help.
    With 2 x Quadcore Processers will help to improve the SQl Server 2000 Std Edition?
    Is there CPU limitation on SQL 2000 Std? How Sql2000 See these 8 CPU's or 2 CPU's?
    Adding 8GB RAM is worth to put?
    OR better to upgrade to Enterprise?
    [/quote]
    There are many factors in sizing a server, but I will tell you this: SQL Server 2000 Std can use all 8 cores of a 2 socket / 4 core box (I've got one here). I was surprised that it did access all the processor cores when I started it up. I think the "4 processor" limit on standard edition is actually a "4 socket" limit, not a "4 core" limit.
    Performance will increase only if you have a lot of parallel threads (ie. many simultaneous users) and if the other systems, such as disks and so on, are up to the task.
    Also I strongly suggest SP4, as other SPs have been "retired" from MS support.
  5. merrillaldrich New Member

    As far as memory goes, SQL Server 2000 Standard is basically designed for a maximum 4 GB 32 bit environment. You can run a pretty beefy application on that setup, and if the application is well designed and the database is tuned right, it can serve a surprisingly large number of users. Many people shell out for enterprise who don't really need it.
    Consider this: the memory "cap" in 2000 Std is GONE in 2005 Std, so if the upgrade path is to 2005, memory is no reason to buy 2000 Enterprise.
    Also, the 64-bit OS essentially removes the 4 GB limitation.
    For those reasons, I am running 2 socket x 4 core boxes (HP, but the brand is not important) with Windows Server 2003 64-Bit Std Ed (access to more RAM than 32-bit OS), 8GB RAM, but with SQL Server 2000 SP4 32-bit, on an upgrade path to SQL Server 2005 Std 64-bit. This setup runs great.
    You need to be pushing a LOT of data to need SQL Server 2005 Enterprise, basically you'd have to be in a situation where you need the Partition functions.
    Short story: 2000 EE is probably a lot of money to spend for not much value, so weigh that carefully.
  6. mcosy New Member

    Hi merrillaldrich,
    Thank you so much for clearing that confusion and advice.
    But our main issue is, This ERP System is highly customized for this company and database is not design propeley ( No indexes in Tabels etc..etc)
    And also not support for SQL 2005 and even SQL 2000 with SP4 lol.
    I got 4 x 2.0 ghz CPU System and 4 GB RAM plus Windows 2000 OS. They (ERP) recomend to move the Frontoffice to new server and run backoffice and frontoffice on 2 SQL Servers to perform well.
    I will go with 2 socket x 4 core boxes with Windows Server 2003 64 bit Std Ed , 8GB RAM, but with SQL Server 2000 SP3 32-bit.
    Can someone tell me the diference for Windows 64 bit with SQL 32 bit and Windows 32 bit and SQL 32 bit?




  7. satya Moderator

  8. satya Moderator

    Soon SP4 and SQL 2000 support will be removed from mainstream support, so whynot a potential candidate for SQL 2005 for this application>?

Share This Page