Please start any new threads on our new
site at https://forums.sqlteam.com. We've got lots of great SQL Server
experts to answer whatever question you can come up with.
| Author |
Topic |
|
rich0148
Starting Member
1 Post |
 Posted - 2007-05-29 : 09:19:11
|
| Hi allDoes anybody have any experience on this? We have some customers who claim our SQL Server 2k based application works better with it disabled. A quick google indicates SQL Server does not run that well with it enabled but I would like to get a broader view on it.ThanksRich |
|
|
spirit1
Cybernetic Yak Master
11752 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-29 : 09:22:31
|
| i've heard the same thing however i've never had the pleasure of (dis)proving it._______________________________________________Causing trouble since 1980blog: http://weblogs.sqlteam.com/mladenp |
 |
|
|
rmiao
Master Smack Fu Yak Hacker
7266 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-29 : 13:33:44
|
| Don't have problem on my servers so far. |
|
|
|
graz
Chief SQLTeam Crack Dealer
4149 Posts |
Posted - 2007-05-29 : 13:51:07
|
| I was able to run some tests with hyper-threading enabled and disabled on a server. We found it increased performance by about 10% from a CPU standpoint as there were no "reporting" queries running on the server. A reporting query is anything long running that needed more than 3-5 seconds of CPU time. As those increased hyper-threading became less effective. I wasn't able to do enough testing to determine if it could hurt performance. I suspect it could though. I doubt it would change your CPU throughput more than 10% either way.I typically find that CPU doesn't have that big an impact on performance. There's usually more time spent waiting on disk than waiting on CPU.===============================================Creating tomorrow's legacy systems today.One crisis at a time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
SQL Server Performance & Hyperthreading