Yeah - that's a given.

It won't if I wrote it. Still not enough free time in my life to figure out
threaded program development. I understand it, just not enough time to get
to writing it.

Not to mention VBScript doesn't do threading all that well...;)

--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
Sr. Systems Administrator
Inovis Inc.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rick Kingslan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 4:25 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Windows Standard Server 2003 or 
> Enterprise Se rver 2003 as DCs
> 
> 
> "Some applications can and some can't - but there's no 
> definitive way to say
> an app can or can't do it."
> 
> Unless, of course, you wrote it....  ;o)
> 
> Rick Kingslan  MCSE, MCSA, MCT
> Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
> Roger Seielstad
> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 7:32 AM
> To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
> Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Windows Standard Server 2003 or 
> Enterprise Se
> rver 2003 as DCs
> 
> Yes, it is taking full advantage of the hyperthreading.
> 
> Keep in mind that hyperthreading IS NOT two separate 
> processors. It is a
> parallel execution path within the processor, which can't always be
> leveraged. Some applications can and some can't - but there's 
> no definitive
> way to say an app can or can't do it.
> 
> Roger
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Roger D. Seielstad - MTS MCSE MS-MVP
> Sr. Systems Administrator
> Inovis Inc.
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Baudino [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2003 12:00 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [ActiveDir] OT: Windows Standard Server 2003 or Enterprise 
> > Server 2003 as DCs
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Folks,
> > 
> > Dumb question but one that for some strange reason we can't get a 
> > definitive answer about.  Xeon processors with 
> hyperthreading seem to 
> > appear as two processors instead of one to both Windows 2000 Server 
> > and Server 2003.  I thought that 2003 would be able to 
> differentiate 
> > between the physical processors and the virtual processors.  In 
> > addition, I've seen conflicting documentation on Microsoft's site 
> > stating that Standard Server
> > 2003 supports up to two processors and supports up to four 
> processors.
> > 
> > That said, if we are building HP DL380G3's with 
> hyperthreading would 
> > we need Enterprise Server 2003 or Standard?  We're planning 
> on using 
> > them for domain controllers and we're trying to remember why we 
> > ordered Enterprise Server 2003 when it appears that the much less 
> > expensive Standard Server
> > 2003 would suffice.
> > 
> > We're running DL380G3's and BL20pG2's with two processors 
> and Standard 
> > Server 2003 seems to be running fine.  But is it taking 
> full advantage 
> > of the processors or running in some sort of crippled mode where it 
> > doesn't utilize the hyperthreading?  Perfmon seems to show 
> that it's 
> > using both of the physicals and both of the virtuals...but...
> > 
> > Any info would be appreciated.
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ******************* PLEASE NOTE ******************* This 
> > E-Mail/telefax message and any documents accompanying this 
> > transmission may contain privileged and/or confidential information 
> > and is intended solely for the addressee(s) named above.  
> If you are 
> > not the intended addressee/recipient, you are hereby 
> notified that any 
> > use of, disclosure, copying, distribution, or reliance on 
> the contents 
> > of this E-Mail/telefax information is strictly prohibited and may 
> > result in legal action against you. Please reply to the sender 
> > advising of the error in transmission and immediately 
> delete/destroy 
> > the message and any accompanying documents.  Thank you.
> > 
> > List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> > List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> > List archive: 
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> > 
> List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> 
> 
> 
> List info   : 
> http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
> List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
> List archive: 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%> 40mail.activedir.org/
> 
List info   : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm
List FAQ    : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm
List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/

Reply via email to