11-09-2004 02:06 PM - edited 03-13-2019 10:33 PM
Has anyone intentionally deployed Intel hyper-threading technology and found a significant change in server resources for ICM?
11-16-2004 10:05 AM
I haven't heard abt this. Can you explain or point resources abt the Intel hyper-threading, which will be helpful in implelmenting in ICM
11-17-2004 12:31 AM
We didnt intentionally deploy hyperthreading but we do have ICM servers that have it. We havent seen any significant impact on server resources for ICM.
Why do you ask?
11-17-2004 05:22 AM
Well, unintentionally we have HT running at a number of customers. My real question is to determine if anyone has real benchmarks (or at least just a gut feeling) on how effective HT is for ICM on Win2k.
One of the problems that Ive witnessed is that I have a dual processor server with Win2k Server installed that shows as a quad-processor to the OS. This is deployed as a PG and is running fine (it is actually running _very_ well at a 5-10 cps load - <10% utilization peak). The same customer has a quad-processor server with Win2k Server installed that also shows as a quad-processor to the OS. This is deployed as a Call Router and is running fine. Due to the licensing issues with Microsoft, I would have to step up to Win2k Advanced Server (more money) to take advantage of HT for this Call Router and show 8 processors to the OS. Im thinking that this is a no-brainer choice but is somewhat hard for me to justify when considering the new cost of the OS as well as the work necessary to upgrade 4 server (2x Loggers + 2x Call Routers). Id like to get some opinions so at least I can say that I asked.
Intel URL: http://www.intel.com/technology/hyperthread/
M$ URL: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/server/evaluation/performance/reports/hyperthread.asp
11-17-2004 06:53 AM
We are running Win2k Advanced Server on core routers and loggers for more than the HT offers us. Win2k Advanced Server also offers better expansion capabilities for Memory (up to 8Gb) which was a big plus for us.
11-17-2004 09:58 AM
In the context you listed, Jeff, I would say "no" - it's not worth the cost. I was going to reply to your post yesterday to that effect, but decided not to because I wasn't sure what the question was.
Now that I do, here goes! ;)
In general, I think HT is a good option to use if it is "free", or essentially comes as an option with your configured hardware (like the PG you mentioned). While it may not offer true 4 processor performance from a dual-processor machine, it can make a significant impact on performance.
When you get to the higher level - like you mentioned with the Call Router, the guidelines (in my opinion) are a little different. The reason I would not pay to upgrade to Advanced Server on the Call Router is that the performance boost *on a Call Router* would not likely be worth the price of admission. If it was a Rogger or Logger - different story. In fact, if this was a higher-end Logger, then you may be back to the "free" model. The reason being that SQL2K recommendations from MS are to use Enterprise Edition when using more than 2GB of physical memory (RAM). While this does not necessarily require Win2K Advanced Server, doing both (Win2K Adv and SQL2K Ent) will yield the most performance boost with a "typical" high-end Logger config (4 processors and 4GB RAM).
So if you go that route - now you can enable HT for "free", which would be worth doing for even more performance boost.
So that's a long-winded way of saying "no" to your Call Router example. If the question was in regards to a Logger, then I might be inclined to say "yes", since the performance boost would be more noticeable because of SQL Server performance.
I think there is some performance tuning being done to ICM for 7.0 to take better advantage of multiple processors and HT, but I'm not positive.
For now, however, I would say this: For something like a Call Router, there may be as much performance advantage in having a dual-processor machine with HT enabled as there is by going with a quad processor machine. Let me make it clear that this is in the context of the ICM Call Router on it's own machine in a typical ICM/IPCC Enterprise configuration. But basically the way the Call Router operates, it would likely find a similar performance boost using HT versus 4 physical processors. There would certainly be more performance to be had with the quads, but frankly it may be a "diminishing returns" situation...
Find answers to your questions by entering keywords or phrases in the Search bar above. New here? Use these resources to familiarize yourself with the community: