July 29, 2011 at 11:31 am
Thank you! Seeing it written as 12:3 made it 'click'; I get it now.
July 29, 2011 at 11:51 am
Ran into this issue years ago with an even number of processors but not a power of 2.
4 sockets with 6 cores each = 24 logical.
July 29, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Nice question, good to know info.
July 31, 2011 at 11:44 pm
Thanks for the question.
Need an answer? No, you need a question
My blog at https://sqlkover.com.
MCSE Business Intelligence - Microsoft Data Platform MVP
August 1, 2011 at 8:50 am
Good question
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events
August 1, 2011 at 10:33 am
bogus question...waste of time
should specify the service pack if your answer is going to be service pack specific.
--
:hehe:
August 1, 2011 at 10:33 am
Thanks for the question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use Full Links:
KB Article from Microsoft on how to ask a question on a Forum
August 1, 2011 at 10:50 am
Slick84 (8/1/2011)
bogus question...waste of timeshould have specific the service pack if you answer was going to be service pack specific.
Next time you have to do an install which fails due to service pack issues, let us know if this type of question is a waste of time. I see it as a very practical concern.
August 1, 2011 at 4:36 pm
Kenneth Fisher-475792 (7/29/2011)
Same goes for 1 processor working. Technically I should have said "RTM installs fail on an odd number of logical or physical processers, unless its a single processor". However since in this case we weren't talking about 1 processor, logical or physical, I chose to shorten the answer slightly.
That, in my view, is appalling indifference to accuracy. The answer you wanted to be correct was actually incorrect. Why should anyone tick "it won't install on an odd number" when in fact it will install cleanly and without problem on 1 processor? 1 was an odd number last time I looked. Your "correct" answer is just plain "incorrect".
It's a rotten question, because it leaves out essential information. Why should I, or anyone else, assume in late 2011 that an install of SQLS 2005 is not an install of SQL 2005 with SP2 or a higher service pack? Any DBA installing an earlier version than SP2 at this date would be irresponsible - the potential problems with such an old version are enormous.
It's an even more rotten answer, because it is just plain wrong even assuming an install of the RTM version. What can that weasel word "technically" in your words quoted above purport to mean other than "actually what I said was correct was just plain wrong"?
BTW, I got the point because I guessed the simple answer would be wrong, did some hunting, found the story, and reached the conclusion that it was a ridiculous trick question. But most people son't have nasty suspicious minds like mine, and will assume that the question means what it asks with no unbelievable provisos thrown in and that the answers offered mean what they say. SO you can't take this comment as sour grapes.
EDIT: Steve, if you feel this comment is OTT, please delete it. But I think you should awatd point sto all who answered "it works OK"
Tom
August 1, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Tom.Thomson (8/1/2011)
Kenneth Fisher-475792 (7/29/2011)
Same goes for 1 processor working. Technically I should have said "RTM installs fail on an odd number of logical or physical processers, unless its a single processor". However since in this case we weren't talking about 1 processor, logical or physical, I chose to shorten the answer slightly.That, in my view, is appalling indifference to accuracy. The answer you wanted to be correct was actually incorrect. Why should anyone tick "it won't install on an odd number" when in fact it will install cleanly and without problem on 1 processor? 1 was an odd number last time I looked. Your "correct" answer is just plain "incorrect".
It's a rotten question, because it leaves out essential information. Why should I, or anyone else, assume in late 2011 that an install of SQLS 2005 is not an install of SQL 2005 with SP2 or a higher service pack? Any DBA installing an earlier version than SP2 at this date would be irresponsible - the potential problems with such an old version are enormous.
It's an even more rotten answer, because it is just plain wrong even assuming an install of the RTM version. What can that weasel word "technically" in your words quoted above purport to mean other than "actually what I said was correct was just plain wrong"?
BTW, I got the point because I guessed the simple answer would be wrong, did some hunting, found the story, and reached the conclusion that it was a ridiculous trick question. But most people son't have nasty suspicious minds like mine, and will assume that the question means what it asks with no unbelievable provisos thrown in and that the answers offered mean what they say. SO you can't take this comment as sour grapes.
EDIT: Steve, if you feel this comment is OTT, please delete it. But I think you should awatd point sto all who answered "it works OK"
I have to completely disagree.
First, I just encountered this issue this month (I had encountered it year ago, but had forgot). I was installing SQL 2005 on a server with 2 CPU's, 6 cores/CPU, and Hyperthreaded. It initially looked like 24 cores, but after I got on ILO to do a hard reset I saw the configuration.
Second, I always install SQL...then the SP. I don't slipstream.
Third, I would not call running SP1 "irresponsable", there are vendor packages that may require it.
Fourth, it's not so much an error of the question, but how MSFT documents it. Perhaps the documentation should say an odd number of cores, where the number of cores is greater than one. However, considering a workaround is to seet boot.ini to a single processor, perhaps they though it was unnecessary to point out that the install will succeed with one cpu.
/* ----------------------------- */
Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
August 2, 2011 at 10:48 am
Tom.Thomson (8/1/2011)
Kenneth Fisher-475792 (7/29/2011)
Same goes for 1 processor working. Technically I should have said "RTM installs fail on an odd number of logical or physical processers, unless its a single processor". However since in this case we weren't talking about 1 processor, logical or physical, I chose to shorten the answer slightly.That, in my view, is appalling indifference to accuracy.
Probably true. What can I say, I'm not perfect
It's a rotten question, because it leaves out essential information. Why should I, or anyone else, assume in late 2011 that an install of SQLS 2005 is not an install of SQL 2005 with SP2 or a higher service pack? Any DBA installing an earlier version than SP2 at this date would be irresponsible - the potential problems with such an old version are enormous.
First you did understand that this was a DR install right? You install what was in production. If RTM was in production (lets certainly hope not) then you install RTM. That being said I was starting at RTM with an intent to patch. Now oddly enough I work with a team of 8 DBAs ranging in experience from just a couple of years up through around 30 and none of us have ever used a "slipstreamed" install. We all install RTM then patch. Its certainly an interesting idea and I'm going to figure out how to do it and probably we will implement it at our company, but obviously assuming that a DBA will know how and will start with a patched install is just as poor an idea as assuming they will start with RTM.
It's an even more rotten answer, because it is just plain wrong even assuming an install of the RTM version. What can that weasel word "technically" in your words quoted above purport to mean other than "actually what I said was correct was just plain wrong"?
oops, sorry, like I said above, not perfect
BTW, I got the point because I guessed the simple answer would be wrong, did some hunting, found the story, and reached the conclusion that it was a ridiculous trick question. But most people don't have nasty suspicious minds like mine, and will assume that the question means what it asks with no unbelievable provisos thrown in and that the answers offered mean what they say. SO you can't take this comment as sour grapes.
Actually I'm glad you got the point. I posted the question, not to trick anyone, not to upset anyone, or cheat someone out of a point. I posted it because it was an interesting problem, and I thought there were people out there who could benefit from the information. I personally always try to use the QoD to learn something. If I get the question right or wrong I generally follow the link, when provided, and read at least something on the subject.
I do apologize that you felt that "Odd # of CPUs other than 1" and "RTM Install, when no service pack or hotfix was mentioned" were "unbelievable provisos" and will certainly try to be more careful of my wording in the future.
Kenneth
Kenneth FisherI was once offered a wizards hat but it got in the way of my dunce cap.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/[/url]For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/[/url]Link to my Blog Post --> www.SQLStudies.com[/url]
August 2, 2011 at 4:10 pm
The question was fine, as I see 'installation of SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition" as being installed with no service packs. The answer however is inaccurate (though I answered it correctly) as explained in this article
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/954835
I just encountered this last month and there are a few things. 1) No, installing SP2 or SP3 does not help this. We tried downloading the Digital versions of both from our resellers to no avail. Additionally, we tried expanding the service pack and installing via command prompt using the setup.exe hotfix=blah, solution to no avail as well. The ONLY option that would work, was forcing the server to think it only had one processor, install SQL Server and the subsequent service packs, then reboot the server into having its normal processors again.
Also per what a previous person said in this post, this server was to support a websphere application, and the requirements from the vendor were to only install sql server 2005 sp1, which it is currently running at and fine.
Link to my blog http://notyelf.com/
August 2, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Kenneth Fisher-475792 (8/2/2011)
I do apologize that you felt that "Odd # of CPUs other than 1" and "RTM Install, when no service pack or hotfix was mentioned" were "unbelievable provisos" and will certainly try to be more careful of my wording in the future.Kenneth
On reflection, I think my comments were probably over the top. I was looking at the world through a haze of annoyment with my telephone provider, and it wasn't fair to allow that to prejudice my view of the question.
Tom
August 2, 2011 at 9:56 pm
shannonjk (8/2/2011)
The question was fine, as I see 'installation of SQL Server 2005 Enterprise edition" as being installed with no service packs. The answer however is inaccurate (though I answered it correctly) as explained in this articlehttp://support.microsoft.com/kb/954835
I just encountered this last month and there are a few things. 1) No, installing SP2 or SP3 does not help this. We tried downloading the Digital versions of both from our resellers to no avail. Additionally, we tried expanding the service pack and installing via command prompt using the setup.exe hotfix=blah, solution to no avail as well. The ONLY option that would work, was forcing the server to think it only had one processor, install SQL Server and the subsequent service packs, then reboot the server into having its normal processors again.
Also per what a previous person said in this post, this server was to support a websphere application, and the requirements from the vendor were to only install sql server 2005 sp1, which it is currently running at and fine.
Actually in my case the only thing that worked was to wait until the install crashed with an error (approx) of "Can't start the SQL Server Service", then when it prompted to retry/cancel I swaped out the recommended files (Sqlservr.exe and Sqlos.dll) then hit retry.
Kenneth
Kenneth FisherI was once offered a wizards hat but it got in the way of my dunce cap.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/[/url]For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/[/url]Link to my Blog Post --> www.SQLStudies.com[/url]
August 2, 2011 at 10:02 pm
Tom.Thomson (8/2/2011)
Kenneth Fisher-475792 (8/2/2011)
I do apologize that you felt that "Odd # of CPUs other than 1" and "RTM Install, when no service pack or hotfix was mentioned" were "unbelievable provisos" and will certainly try to be more careful of my wording in the future.Kenneth
On reflection, I think my comments were probably over the top. I was looking at the world through a haze of annoyment with my telephone provider, and it wasn't fair to allow that to prejudice my view of the question.
Perfectly understandable, every telephone provider I've ever worked with has driven me into a blind rage every now and again.
I will say that I could have worded the question and answer a little more explicetly and part of it (as I look back at the KB article) has to do with my lack of knowledge about multicore processors etc.
Kenneth FisherI was once offered a wizards hat but it got in the way of my dunce cap.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------For better, quicker answers on T-SQL questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/[/url]For better answers on performance questions, click on the following... http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/SQLServerCentral/66909/[/url]Link to my Blog Post --> www.SQLStudies.com[/url]
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 48 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply