Multi-Processor Support...

[jamdev12]

Hi all,

Thanks in advance for your help.

I'm a bit confuse by Micro$ofts multi-processor support in Windows 2003.

For example take a look at the website below;

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003...4/standard.mspx

Now on the field where it states MultiProcessor Support does that mean this version of Windows 2003 Server only supports 4 cores or does it only support up to 4 socket systems. Meaning that if I have 4 Quad Cores this version of Windows 2003 Server will see all 16 cores?

Wish Microsoft would update their charts to resemble that for Windows 2008. At least it states in plain English what is supported;

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008...pare-specs.aspx

jamdev12

[tosk]

It should mean 4 physical sockets are supported, not cores.

[pointertovoid]

Sorry guys, but Xp-2k3 count cores, not sockets. Meaning: 1 core for Xp Home, 2 cores for Xp Pro.

Vista-2k8 count sockets.

W2k counts one hyperthreaded core as two processors (as opposed to one processor with Xp-2k3), so it may be advantageous to switch HT off.

So for heavy core counts, you better switch to Vista, or buy an Nt4 Luxurious Server dirt cheap on eBay - but then, installing big disks, drivers, applications gets cumbersome.

More or less affordable are W2k Server and Advanced Server.

----------

I'm just getting tired of such limitations at Microsoft. I understand 2 cores may cost more than 1 but I don't see why 1000 cores should cost more than 2, as it doesn't need more software development. Similarly, I'm fed up with Ram size limitations. Having limits and price differences at 32, 36 and 64 bits addresses makes sense, but not at 8GB.

These are some of the reasons (as well as 64 bits and activation and Wga etc etc) which may well let me switch to Linux some day.

[cluberti]

First, note that this information was found very quickly and easily via a google search.

Sorry guys, but Xp-2k3 count cores, not sockets. Meaning: 1 core for Xp Home, 2 cores for Xp Pro.

Vista-2k8 count sockets.

You are incorrect, Microsoft (for licensing) counts SOCKETS, not CORES (or virtual hyperthreaded CPUs), for Windows. There are caveats for SQL Server and Exchange server licensing, for instance, but for Windows itself, Microsoft counts SOCKETS (a quad-core CPU would license as ONE cpu in Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Server 2008 - and a CPU that exposes a "virtual CPU" via hyperthreading also does not incur a license cost for that virtual HT CPU either - only the socket).

It's laid out VERY clearly right here. It's very clear and obvious that Windows licensing is PER SOCKET. The relevant text from the article:

Licensing Microsoft Software on Multicore Processors

On October 19, 2004, Microsoft announced that its server software that is currently licensed on a per-processor model will continue to be licensed on a per-processor, and not on a per-core, model. This policy will allow customers to recognize more performance and power from Microsoft software on a multicore processor system without incurring additional software licensing fees.

Licensing on a per-processor rather than a per-core basis ensures that customers will not face additional software licensing requirements or incur additional licensing fees when they choose to adopt multicore processor technology. Customers who use software from vendors that license by individual core, as other software vendors currently do, may face increased software costs when they upgrade to multicore processor systems. Multicore processor systems licensed on a per-processor basis will also help make this new enterprise computing technology affordable to midsize and small business customers.

...

Q. A customer wants to upgrade their single-core processor system by replacing the single-core processor with a multicore processor. If they do so, will there be an increase in cost for their current software license?

A. No. The customer will incur the cost for one software license per processor, not per core. So if a customer replaces the single-core processor on their system with a multicore processor, they will need to have only one license per processor.

[pointertovoid]

Wrong.

Edited April 5, 2009 by pointertovoid

[cluberti]

Wrong.

?

[IcemanND]

Apparently he doesn't believe Microsoft's own documentation.

[PC_LOAD_LETTER]

Wrong.

well thats a well thought out response. I especially like your use of authoritative sources. It really helps prove your point.

[fdv]

Actually, pointertovoid is not wrong, but is slightly confused... as others seem to be as well.

jamdev12: "does that mean this version of Windows 2003 Server only supports 4 cores or does it only support up to 4 socket systems."

I see the word "support."

pointertovoid: "Sorry guys, but Xp-2k3 count cores"

... and he's correct. Xp and 2003 recognize cores...

pointertovoid: ", not sockets."

... and he's confused, XP and 2003 see both.

pointertovoid: "W2k counts one hyperthreaded core as two processors"

Indeed 2k sees a processor with HT as two processors. Of course, this is limited to older processors with HT. pointertovoid might be assuming that hyperthreading is present in processors after the P4, which of course it is not.

pointertovoid: "So for heavy core counts, you better switch to Vista, or buy an Nt4 Luxurious Server dirt cheap"

He's quite right again. I'm spotting NT4 on ebay for $22. That's $5.50 USD per core for NT4. Vista's cheaper? Someone want to show me where? Perhaps if we have dual processors with 4 cores, Vista will be cheaper? Let's see. I can get Windows NT 4 Server Enterprise Edition for $99 on Amazon, or $89 used. That's eight processors/cores, that's roughly $12.50 USD per core. Vista Business (dual quad core support) is $125 or $15.60 USD per core.

pointertovoid: "I understand 2 cores may cost more than 1 but I don't see why 1000 cores should cost more than 2,"

I read this as differences in Vista pricing. Does every version of Vista support multiple cores? Yep. Does every edition of Vista support multiple sockets? Apparently, no... There is an edition that supports only one processor. Cheap Vista = 4 cores max (because that's all that exists on the market). If I want more, say 8 cores, I have to buy a version of Vista that support two physical quad core processors. pointertovoid asserts that that would cost more, and in fact, the reality is that it does, because it's a different and more expensive version of Vista.

How on Earth did this become a "licensing" question?

Anyway, anyone want to tackle making a product comparison matrix showing core support, physical processor support, etc etc etc etc etc etc?

[cluberti]

How on Earth did this become a "licensing" question?

Because Microsoft limits the number of sockets you can have based on what you've paid for, so "supporting" versus "can use" is strictly licensing. XP Home can "see" one socket, but it can *use* as many cores as you can cram on said socket due to the way Microsoft licenses the product. XP Pro can "see" two sockets, and it can *use* as many cores as you can cram on said sockets, again due to licensing restrictions. Server 2003 can see differing sockets (again, not cores, sockets) based on what you've licensed, hence the discussion.