Solved Able to install dual 8-core CPUs?

September 7, 2011 at 06:08:51
Specs: Windows 2003, AMD Phenom II X4 / 4GB RAM
Windows 2003 Server supports up to 8 processors. Does this mean physical processors, or 8 cores? I would like to upgrade my terminal server with dual 8 or 12 core CPUS, but it seems to me that I can't.
How should I go about to interpret the limitations of this OS?

See More: Able to install dual 8-core CPUs?

Report •

#1
September 7, 2011 at 06:43:50
✔ Best Answer
Server 2003 Enterprise Edition supports up to 8 physical processors. The design of the OS limits the maximum number of cores to 32. How many CPU's and their type will be limited by your hardware.

Report •

#2
September 7, 2011 at 08:27:48
And there is a limit in the OS. For example Standard 2003 only supports 4 cpus wheither that is a single quad core or two dual cores.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#3
September 7, 2011 at 09:23:31
I believe that is incorrect, wanderer. Standard 2003 supports up to 4 physical processors, but there is no limit on the number of cores that each of those processors may have.

Report •

Related Solutions

#4
September 7, 2011 at 09:34:19
I don't think there is a licensing limit on the number of cores but the OS architecture limits the number to 32. Among other things there are a number of bitmaps used in core management and these are all 32 bit values.

Report •

#5
September 7, 2011 at 10:32:13
Sorry. When I said "no limit" I should have allowed for the 32 maximum. I doubt that many people have 4 processors with more than 8 cores each.

Report •

#6
September 7, 2011 at 13:34:11
Ok, so I can install 2 8core Opteron processors on a machine running Windows 2003 Enterprise Server. Good, and thanks for clearing that up.
Since this machine will run Terminal Services, serving around 30 users using large amount or both RAM and CPU, am I better off using a quad core desktop processor? I'm just blindly looking at the operation speed. Desktop CPUs go well over 3GHz while the new 8-core Opterons are around 2.4. The only thing that I can see that I gain from using Opterons is that I can use much more RAM and run two physical processors at once. Do they provide me with other goodies for a Terminal Server or should I simply stick with a desktop hardware?

Report •

#7
September 7, 2011 at 14:06:59
Wanderer: Have a look here: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888732

x86-based versions of Windows Server 2003 that are running on a computer that uses a multicore processor or a hyper-threading processor support a maximum number of 32 logical processors.

x64-based versions of Windows Server 2003 that are running on a computer that uses a multicore processor or a hyper-threading processor support a maximum number of 64 logical processors.

And, if there is a problem, the hotfix that you link to will solve it.


Report •

#8
September 7, 2011 at 15:23:15
MockY I would advise you not to consider a desktop for running TS functions.
You will be extremely disappointed.

At this level the mhz of the cpu does not count compared to ram and the amount of supported cpus that can be used by TS

Another factor you are not considering is bandwidth to the TS server. We do dual gigabit connections for a max of 4000mbps throughput but it takes a good managed backbone switch to support this.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#9
September 7, 2011 at 15:43:49
I shall stay away from a desktop solution.

I was just thinking of upgrading the network to 1Gbit, which is a huge increase from our current 10/100Mbps, by simply replacing our switches in the server room with two ASUS GX-D1241 and pop in some new NIC cards in the workstations.
I have no need for managed switches. I just need the amount of ports necessary for all work stations as well as support for 1000Mbps.


Report •

#10
September 8, 2011 at 08:14:22
You underestimate what a managed switch can do for you.

You have better ability to troubleshoot the network, do vlans and you can do adapter teaming which you can not do any of these with an unmanaged switch.

You would be amazed at what port stats can tell you went you have congestion/slowness or issues with nics

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#11
September 8, 2011 at 15:47:06
Everyone but management and I use the Terminal Server. So monitoring ports for bandwidth usage wont do me any good since all client traffic goes in and out the same machine and therefore the same port of the switch.

What I need is somehow know how much bandwidth each logged on profile/user is using. Without that, all traffic originates from the same IP and the port and there is no way of knowing which user is actually eating the bandwidth.


Report •

#12
September 8, 2011 at 16:08:09
:-) You aren't seeing the bigger picture.

A managed switch isn't about monitoring bandwidth utilization.

Clients connecting to a TS server are only exchanging KVM packets not data packets like a pc to server does.

Might want to post a different question to address how to monitor internet access from a TS server.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#13
September 8, 2011 at 16:17:46
Could you elaborate on that?
I mean, what would be the main advantage of going with a managed Switch over an unmanaged in an environment such as mine, where majority of users connect to a TS?

Report •

#14
September 8, 2011 at 20:26:01
Already mentioned the advantages of adapter teaming.

Lets say your network has become really slow. You suspect you have a nic that is a jabber but you don't know which pc/thin client is doing it.

With a managed switch you would just look at the port stat errors. Easy to find

No managed switch you either have to use and know how to interprete wireshark or you turn off one machine at a time to determine which one is dragging your network down.

Another example: you have a unit that sporatically can't connect to apps or just has general access problems. All your tests are inconclusive. Yet when you examine the port stats you see there are a lot of giants and runts. You replace the nic and all is solved.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

Ask Question