Search Results

Search found 51 results on 3 pages for 'hyperthreading'.

Page 1/3 | 1 2 3  | Next Page >

  • Hyperthreading vs. SQL Server & PostgreSQL

    - by IanC
    I have read that hyperthreading is a "performance killer" when it comes to DBs. However, what I read didn't state which CPUs. Further, it mostly indicated that I/O was "cut to < 10% performance". That logically doesn't make sense since I/O is primarily a function of controllers and disks, not CPUs. But then no one ever said bugs made sense. What I read also stated that SQL Server could put two parallel query ops onto 1 logical core (2 threads), thereby degrading performance. I have a hard time believing SQL Server's architects would have made such an obvious miscalculation. Does anyone have and data on how hyperthreading on current generation CPUs affects either of the RDBMSs I mentioned?

    Read the article

  • Will disabling hyperthreading improve performance on our SQL Server install

    - by Sam Saffron
    Related to: Current wisdom on SQL Server and Hyperthreading Recently we upgraded our Windows 2008 R2 database server from an X5470 to a X5560. The theory is both CPUs have very similar performance, if anything the X5560 is slightly faster. However, SQL Server 2008 R2 performance has been pretty bad over the last day or so and CPU usage has been pretty high. Page life expectancy is massive, we are getting almost 100% cache hit for the pages, so memory is not a problem. When I ran: SELECT * FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats order by signal_wait_time_ms desc I got: wait_type waiting_tasks_count wait_time_ms max_wait_time_ms signal_wait_time_ms ------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- -------------------- XE_TIMER_EVENT 115166 2799125790 30165 2799125065 REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH 559393 2799053973 5180 2799053973 SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD 152289883 189948844 960 189756877 CXPACKET 234638389 2383701040 141334 118796827 SLEEP_TASK 170743505 1525669557 1406 76485386 LATCH_EX 97301008 810738519 1107 55093884 LOGMGR_QUEUE 16525384 2798527632 20751319 4083713 WRITELOG 16850119 18328365 1193 2367880 PAGELATCH_EX 13254618 8524515 11263 1670113 ASYNC_NETWORK_IO 23954146 6981220 7110 1475699 (10 row(s) affected) I also ran -- Isolate top waits for server instance since last restart or statistics clear WITH Waits AS ( SELECT wait_type, wait_time_ms / 1000. AS [wait_time_s], 100. * wait_time_ms / SUM(wait_time_ms) OVER() AS [pct], ROW_NUMBER() OVER(ORDER BY wait_time_ms DESC) AS [rn] FROM sys.dm_os_wait_stats WHERE wait_type NOT IN ('CLR_SEMAPHORE','LAZYWRITER_SLEEP','RESOURCE_QUEUE', 'SLEEP_TASK','SLEEP_SYSTEMTASK','SQLTRACE_BUFFER_FLUSH','WAITFOR','LOGMGR_QUEUE', 'CHECKPOINT_QUEUE','REQUEST_FOR_DEADLOCK_SEARCH','XE_TIMER_EVENT','BROKER_TO_FLUSH', 'BROKER_TASK_STOP','CLR_MANUAL_EVENT','CLR_AUTO_EVENT','DISPATCHER_QUEUE_SEMAPHORE', 'FT_IFTS_SCHEDULER_IDLE_WAIT','XE_DISPATCHER_WAIT', 'XE_DISPATCHER_JOIN')) SELECT W1.wait_type, CAST(W1.wait_time_s AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS wait_time_s, CAST(W1.pct AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS pct, CAST(SUM(W2.pct) AS DECIMAL(12, 2)) AS running_pct FROM Waits AS W1 INNER JOIN Waits AS W2 ON W2.rn <= W1.rn GROUP BY W1.rn, W1.wait_type, W1.wait_time_s, W1.pct HAVING SUM(W2.pct) - W1.pct < 95; -- percentage threshold And got wait_type wait_time_s pct running_pct CXPACKET 554821.66 65.82 65.82 LATCH_EX 184123.16 21.84 87.66 SOS_SCHEDULER_YIELD 37541.17 4.45 92.11 PAGEIOLATCH_SH 19018.53 2.26 94.37 FT_IFTSHC_MUTEX 14306.05 1.70 96.07 That shows huge amounts of time synchronizing queries involving parallelism (high CXPACKET). Additionally, anecdotally many of these problem queries are being executed on multiple cores (we have no MAXDOP hints anywhere in our code) The server has not been under load for more than a day or so. We are experiencing a large amount of variance with query executions, typically many queries appear to be slower that they were on our previous DB server and CPU is really high. Will disabling Hyperthreading help at reducing our CPU usage and increase throughput?

    Read the article

  • Current wisdom on SQL Server and Hyperthreading?

    - by BradC
    Lots of articles out there (see Slava Oks's original SQL 2000 article and Kevin Kline's SQL 2005 update) recommend disabling hyperthreading on SQL servers, or at least testing your specific workload before enabling it on your servers. This issue is gradually becoming less relevant as true multi-core processors replace hyperthreaded ones, but what's the current wisdom on this issue? Does this advice change any with SQL 2005 64-bit, or SQL 2008, or Windows Server 2008? Ideally, this should be tested in advance in a staging environment, but what about for servers that have already made it into production with HT enabled? How can I tell if performance issues we're experiencing might be related to HT? Is there some specific combination of perfmon counters that might point me in that direction, as opposed to all the other things I normally pursue when working on improving SQL performance? Edit: This is especially attractive because of the potential for an across the board improvement for some of my high-cpu servers, but the client is going to want to see something concrete that helps me identify which servers really could benefit from disabling hyperthreading. Of course, conventional performance troubleshooting is ongoing, but sometimes any little bit helps.

    Read the article

  • cpu load measure with hyperthreading on linux

    - by dronus
    How can I get the true usage of a multicore hyperthreading enabled cpu? For example lets consider a 2 core CPU, expressing 4 virtual cores. A single threaded workload would now show up as 100% in top, as one core of the virtual cores is completely used. The CPU and top work as expected, like there would be 4 real cores. With two threads however, the things get arkward: If all works well, they are balanced to the two real cores, so we got 200% usage: Two times 100% and two idle virtual cores, and are using all of the available CPU power. Seems ok to me. However, if the two threads would run on a single real core, they would show up as using two times 100%, that makes 200% virtual core usage. But on the real side, that would be one core sharing its power on the two threads, which are then using only one half of the total CPU power. So the usage numbers shown by top can not be used to measure the total CPU workload. I also wonder how hyperthreading balances two virtual on a real core. If two threads take a different amount of cycles, would the virtual cores 'adapt' so that both show a 100% load even if the real load differ?

    Read the article

  • C/C++/Assembly Programatically detect if hyper-threading is active on Windows, Mac and Linux

    - by HTASSCPP
    I can already correctly detect the number of logical processors correctly on all three of these platforms. To be able to detect the number of physical processors/cores correctly I'll have to detect if hyperthreading is supported AND active (or enabled if you prefer) and if so divide the number of logical processors by 2 to determine the number of physical processors. Perphaps I should provide an example: A quad core Intel CPU's with hyperthreading enabled has 4 physical cores, yet 8 logical processors (hyperthreading creates 4 more logical processors). So my current function would detect 8 instead of the desired 4. My question therefore is if there is a way to detect whether hyperthreading is supported AND ENABLED?

    Read the article

  • CPU ordering in Linux (with hyper threading)

    - by Jason
    I'm curious what the CPU ordering is in Linux. Say I bind a thread to cpu0 and another to cpu1 on a hyperthreaded system, are they both going to be on the same physical core. Given a Core i7 920 with 4 cores and hyperthreading, the output of /proc/cpuinfo has me thinking that cpu0 and cpu1 are different physical cores, and cpu0 and cpu4 are on the same physical core. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Programatically detect number of physical processors/cores or if hyper-threading is active on Window

    - by HTASSCPP
    I have a multithreaded c++ application that runs on Windows, Mac and a few Linux flavours. To make a long story short: Inorder for it to run at maximum efficiency I have to be able to instantiate a single thread per physical processor/core. Creating more threads than there are physical processors/cores degrades the performance of my program considerably. I can already correctly detect the number of logical processors/cores correctly on all three of these platforms. To be able to detect the number of physical processors/cores correctly I'll have to detect if hyper-treading is supported AND active. My question therefore is if there is a way to detect whether hyperthreading is supported AND ENABLED? If so, how exactly.

    Read the article

  • Hyper-V and Hyper-threading: On or off?

    - by CapBBeard
    Hey all, With the new Xeon CPUs supporting Hyper-threading, what is the current wisdom with regard to using it (or not) on a Hyper-V host machine? I was originally under the impression that turning it on in a virtual host environment could be detrimental as the 'extra' CPUs were not true cores. However I've also read (unconfirmed) comments along the lines of MS doing some hard work to get Hyper-V running well in a Hyper-threading environment. Does anyone have any solid information or experience in this regard? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • Eclipse: would more CPU cores with HyperThreading help increase speed?

    - by Dylan
    I'm programming a very large project in Eclipse. Right now I use a dual core machine with 2GB RAM, but Eclipse is sometimes busy for minutes (refreshing/indexing/building), so I'm upgrading to a new machine (with 16GB RAM and an SSD). Now I must choose between an Intel 2500K or an Intel 2600K that has HyperThreading. The price difference is about $100. Would that be worth it, for Eclipse, or is more memory/faster drive much more important for Eclipse ? Can Eclipse make use of the HyperThreading at all?

    Read the article

  • Does GetSystemInfo (on Windows) always return the number of logical processors?

    - by mhughes
    Reading up on this, and specifically reading the Microsoft docs, it looks like it should be returning the number of PHYSICAL processors, and that you should use GetLogicalProcessorInformation to figure out how many LOGICAL processors you have. Here's the doc I found on the SYSTEM_INFO structure: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724958(v=VS.85).aspx And here's the doc on GetLogicalProcessorInformation: (spaces added to get through spam filter) http:// msdn.microsoft.com/ en-us/ library/ ms683194.aspx Reading up on it further though, in most of the discussions I've found on this topic, developers say to that GetSystemInfo (and the SYSTEM_INFO structure) report the number of LOGICAL processors. When I search again, I find that MS did release some info on this (and a hot fix), here (spaces added to get through spam filter): http:// support. microsoft.com/ kb/936235 Reading that, it sounds like on Xp, pre-service Pack 3, GetSystemInfo reports the number of LOGICAL processors in the SYSTEM_INFO structure. It also reads to me that on Windows Vista and Windows 7, GetSystemInfo should be reporting the number of PHYSICAL processors (different to Windows XP pre-service Pack 3). Does anyone know what it actually does? Does GetSystemInfo really report the number of physical processors (on the same computer) differently, depending on which OS it's running on?

    Read the article

  • Intel cpu hyperthreading on or off for ibm db2?

    - by rtorti19
    Has anyone ever done any database performance comparisons with hyper-threading enabled vs disabled? We are running ibm db2 and I'm curious if anyone has an recommendations for enabling hyper-threading or not. With hyper-threading enabled it makes it quite difficult to do capacity planning for cpu usage. For example. "With 8 physical cores represented as 16 "threads" on the OS and a cpu-bound workload, does that mean when your cpu usage hit's 50% you are actually running at 100%." What real benefits do I gain with leaving hyper-threading enabled on an intel server running DB2? Does hyper-threading help if you're workload is truly disk IO bound? If so, up to what percentage? These are the types of questions I'm trying to answer. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Web App Server hardware question. Which configuration?

    - by JBeckton
    I am pricing some new servers and I am not sure which configuration to get. The server will be running several web applications for our company. Some of them are ASP.Net sites and some are ColdFusion. The OS will be Win Server 2008 Web or Standard Edition. Do I need 2 processors or will a single quad core handle it? Xeon multi core Hyperthreading or non Hyperthreading? I am going 64bit so I can go higher than 4 Gigs of Ram. I am shopping at Dell and there are so many options, I want to get the most bang for my buck without going over budget and I also don't want the machine to be mostly under utilized.

    Read the article

  • Web App Server hardware question. Which configuration?

    - by JBeckton
    I am pricing some new servers and I am not sure which configuration to get. The server will be running some web applications for our company. Some of them are ASP.Net sites and some are ColdFusion. The OS will be Win Server 2008 Web or Standard Edition. Do I need 2 processors or will a single quad core handle it? Xeon multi core Hyperthreading or non Hyperthreading? I am going 64bit so I can go higher than 4 Gigs of Ram. I am shopping at Dell and there are so many options, i do not want to get too much hardware and not use half of it because that would be a waste of money and I do not want to get too little and have to ask for more money to upgrade it later.

    Read the article

  • How many per-core licenses do I need?

    - by GavinPayneUK
      With SQL Server 2012, your licensing requirements can chose to use or be required to use a per-core model depending on the edition you’re deploying. This is a change to previous editions which used a per-CPU socket model that made counting how many per-CPU licences you needed easier – cores and HyperThreading didn’t influence the CPU socket count.  Any complications which people did have typically came from running SQL Server in a virtualised environment, was a vCPU a socket or did licensing...(read more)

    Read the article

  • How to find virtualization performance bottlenecks?

    - by Martin
    We have recently started moving our C++ build server(s) from real machines into VMs. (MS Hyper-V) We have some performance issues that I've currently no idea how to address. We have: Test-Box - this is a piece of desktop workstation hardware my co-worker used to set up the VM before we moved it to the actual server hardware Srv-Box - this is the server hardware Test-Box-Real - This is Windows running directly on the Test-Box HW Test-Box-VM - This is Windows in a Hyper-V VM on the Test-Box HW Srv-Box-Real- This is Server2008R2 running on the Srv-Box HW. Srv-Box-VM- This is Windows running in a Hyper-V VM on the Srv-Box HW, i.e. on Srv-Box-Real. Now, the problem is that we compared Build times between Test-Box-Real and Test-Box-VM and they were basically equal (within about 2%). Then we moved the VM to the Srv-Box machine and what we saw there is that we have a significant performance degradation between Srv-Box-Real and Srv-Box-VM, that is, where we saw no differences on the Test HW we now do see major differences in performance on the actual Server HW. (Builds about ~~ 50% slower inside the VM.) I should add that both the Test-Box and the Srv-Box are only running this one single VM and doing nothing else. I should also note that the "Real" OS is Win2008R2(64bit) and the VM hosted OS is Wind2003R2(32bit). Hardware specs: Srv-Box: Intel XEON E5640 @ 2.67Ghz (This means 8 cores with hyperthreading on the Real system and "only" 4 cores on the VM, since Hyper-V doesn't allow for hyperthreading, but number of cores doesn't seem to explain the problem here.) 16GB RAM (we have 4GB assigned to the VM) Virtual DELL RAID 1 (2x 450GB HUS156045VLS600 Hitachi 15k SAS drives) Test-Box: Intel XEON E31245 @ 3.3GHz 16GB RAM WD VelociRaptor 600GB 10k RPM SATA Note again that I'm only concerned with the differences between Srv-Box-Real and Srv-Box-VM (high) vs. the differences seen btw. Test-Box-Real and Test-Box-VM (low). Why would one machine have parity when comparing VM vs Real performance and the other (server grade HW no less) would have a large disparity? (Both being XEON CPUs ...)

    Read the article

  • Multicore system. How are the cores "sorted"

    - by asdrubael
    If I have a system with let's say two Quadcore CPUs and HyperThreading enabled, how do I know how the phsyical and virtual cores are sorted? For example if I force a process to run on "CPU 0" how to know which Core this really is? I remember a complex drawing about this, but didn't find anything useful.

    Read the article

  • FreeBSD with 64 CPUs

    - by Brett
    I have a quad socket octo-core system running FreeBSD. Currently, I need to turn off HyperThreading to get it to boot, as FreeBSD only supports 32 CPUs. There were some patches made awhile ago against a trunk version of 8.1, but even after modifying them slightly to work and compile with 8.1-RELEASE, the machine wouldn't boot. Has there been any progress here? I can't find much good information about it, Google thinks I'm talking about 64-bit architecture and not literally 64 CPUs.

    Read the article

  • Kernel Panic Fatal Machine Check

    - by 0x4a6f4672
    I have got a new Samsung Series 7 laptop with dual boot setup for Windows 8 and Ubuntu 12.10. The Ubuntu installation was quite a hassle, but with the help of Boot Repair finally it seemed to work. Or so I thought. Windows 8 starts fine, but if I want to start Ubuntu regularly the following error occurs, quite similar to this one [Hardware Error] CPU 1: Machine Check Exception: 5 Bank 6 [Hardware Error] RIP !inexact! 33 <00007fab2074598a> [Hardware Error] TSC 95b623464c ADDR fe400 MISC 3880000086 .. [similar messages for CPU 2,3 and 0] .. [Hardware Error] Machine Check: Processor context corrupt Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Machine Check Rebooting in 30 seconds Kernel panic does not sound good. Then it starts to reboot, and the second boot trial often works. Is it a Kernel or driver problem? The laptop has an Intel Core i7 processor. I already deactivated Hyperthreading in the BIOS, but it does not seem to help :-(

    Read the article

  • Intel Core i5-2467m - Turbo Boost not activating?

    - by Trevor Sullivan
    I have a Samsung Series 5 laptop with an Intel Core i5-2467m process @ 1.6Ghz. The processor supports Intel Turbo Boost up to 2.30 Ghz according to the specifications. The i5-2467m is a dual-core process with HyperThreading, so there is a total of four (4) virtual cores in Windows 7 SP1. http://ark.intel.com/products/56858/ I've installed the Intel Turbo Boost Technology Monitor v2.6 to monitor if Turbo Boost is enabled, and set it to "Always On Top." I followed this process to max out the CPU: Open (4x) PowerShell instances Set each instance's affinity to a distinct CPU vCore Ran this code in each instance: while (1 -eq 1) { } Unfortunately, after maxing out all 4 cores, my laptop got hot, but Turbo Boost never kicked in. Any ideas on how to ensure that I'm getting the 2.3Ghz Turbo Boost capability of my laptop?

    Read the article

  • Virtualized CPU cores vs. threads

    - by nedm
    We've got a KVM host system on Ubuntu 9.10 with a newer Quad-core Xeon CPU with hyperthreading. As detailed on Intel's product page, the processor has 4 cores but 8 threads. /proc/cpuinfo and htop both list 8 processors, though each one states 4 cores in cpuinfo. KVM/QEMU also reports 8 VCPUs available to assign to guests. My question is when I'm allocating VCPUs to VM guests, should I allocate per-core or per-thread? Since KVM/QEMU reports the server has 8 VCPUs to allocate, should I go ahead and set a guest to use 4 CPUs where I previously would have set it to use 2 (assuming 4 total VCPUs available)? I'd like to get the most possible out of the host hardware without over-allocating.

    Read the article

  • Creating a vm using Hyper-V causes the host of BSOD

    - by Arcass
    Hi, Problem description: When I try to create a virtual machine, the host bsod part way through the process. From the logs in lookes to fail/hang on the "Creating new VirtualDisckDriver with new VHD" step. The BSOD error code is SYSTEM_SERVICE_EXCEPTION : STOP:0x0000003B When the machine has finished restarting, it looks to have created the vhd and XML files for the vm but it isn't accessable. I have two server bothing behaving in exactly the same way, so I don't believe it's a hardware fault. Has anyone had a similar experince? How did you resolve the problem? NOTES Hardware: HP DL380 G6 BIOS : 2010.03.30 (14 Apr 2010) [Latest from HP website] Inter Hyperthreading: Disabled Intel Virtuazation Technology : Enabled No-Execute Memory Protection: Enabled Mem check reports no errors OS: Windows 2008 Sp2 x64bit fully updated regards Arcass

    Read the article

  • Quad Core host with hyper-threading, how many processors to configure in VirtualBox?

    - by Anthony
    I have a quad-core i7 processor with hyperthreading (8 logical cores), when I configured a virtual machine to use 8 processors, VirtualBox gave me a warning saying that I only have four cores (which is true) and that this may cause a performance issue. But hyper-threading is a hardware feature, so the OS sees 8 cores and it sends instructions to all 8. What if setting it to 4 caused the VM to use 2 cores (4 threads) instead of 4 simultaneous threads (on all 4 cores)? Does the warning I got take into account that my machine has hyper-threading?

    Read the article

  • How to diagnose and fix Kernel Panic Fatal Machine Check error?

    - by 0x4a6f4672
    I have got a new Samsung Series 7 laptop with dual boot setup for Windows 8 and Ubuntu 12.10. A fine machine comparable to a Macbook Pro. The Ubuntu installation was quite a hassle, but with the help of Boot Repair finally it seemed to work. Or so I thought. Windows 8 starts fine, but if I want to start Ubuntu regularly the following Machine Check Exception error occurs, quite similar to this one [Hardware Error] CPU 1: Machine Check Exception: 5 Bank 6 [Hardware Error] RIP !inexact! 33 <00007fab2074598a> [Hardware Error] TSC 95b623464c ADDR fe400 MISC 3880000086 .. [similar messages for CPU 2,3 and 0] .. [Hardware Error] Machine Check: Processor context corrupt Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Machine Check Rebooting in 30 seconds Kernel panic does not sound good. Then it starts to reboot, and the second boot trial often works. Is it a Kernel or driver problem? The laptop has an Intel Core i7 processor. I already deactivated Hyperthreading in the BIOS, but it does not seem to help :-( I also disabled the Execute Disable Bit (EDB) flag in the BIOS. EDB is an Intel hardware-based security feature that can help reduce system exposure to viruses and malicious code. Since I disabled it, the error did occur less frequently, but it still appears occasionally :-( It seems to be the same error as described here and here. Maybe a Samsung specific Kernel problem? A similar error also happens on a Samsung Ultrabook Series 9 (which seems to be kernel bugs 49161 and 47121). At my Samsung Series 7, it still occurs for instance during booting on battery after "Checking battery state". Perhaps anyone else has an idea? These Kernel Panic errors are reallly annoying..

    Read the article

1 2 3  | Next Page >