July 29, 2011 at 6:39 am
This has bit me numerous times (including last week), now I make a habbit of changing the boot.ini file to one processor before all SQL 2005 installs on machine with an odd number of total processors or cores. That being said, one processor is an odd number, yet the install works
/* ----------------------------- */
Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
July 29, 2011 at 7:03 am
It would be nice to have more questions like these. Good question. Thanks.
M&M
July 29, 2011 at 7:07 am
anthony.green (7/29/2011)
I would have to agree with Murray on this, it would have been nice to know which level of the product it relates to.All the media I have been working with included SP2 as part of the disk so I have never encountered this issue.
Same here. Stating RTM SQL 2005 or SP1 2005 would have clarified it better. Alas...
July 29, 2011 at 7:08 am
Shark Energy (7/29/2011)
No excuses people I mean if follow the question in your head, it fails before you get to installing any SPx so follow the question and its all in front of you.
Not if you or a helpful netadmin slipstreamed the sp onto the RTM install media, or the disk you purchased to install came with SP2.
July 29, 2011 at 7:09 am
Shark Energy (7/29/2011)
In the absence of an SP listed in the question for the SQL install, I'd assume he is referring to vanilla flavour.Totally agreeing to disagree 😛
You can't assume RTM anymore than a specific SP as he didn't specify RTM either.
July 29, 2011 at 7:17 am
Not to nitpick, but even the article referenced stated - "On a computer that has a multicore processor, you may be unable to install SQL Server 2005"
The optimal word being "may."
Chris Powell
George: You're kidding.
Elroy: Nope.
George: Then lie to me and say you're kidding.
July 29, 2011 at 7:20 am
Meet George Jetson (7/29/2011)
Not to nitpick, but even the article referenced stated - "On a computer that has a multicore processor, you may be unable to install SQL Server 2005"The optimal word being "may."
On a server with an odd number (physical CPU * core), I have *never* been able to do a successful install of SQL 2005 without making modifications. There is no may about it, it just plain does not work as is
/* ----------------------------- */
Tochter aus Elysium, Wir betreten feuertrunken, Himmlische, dein Heiligtum!
July 29, 2011 at 7:22 am
I answered that it would install correctly. I was sure that a company as big as Microsoft could figure out how to get a database program to count the number of CPUs in the server hardware it would be running on.
July 29, 2011 at 7:32 am
Keep in mind that this could be for DR. On many sites, we use original media, pre-SP2, to do a DR install on the fly. In fact, the only time I have used slipstream media (which I had to make myself) was installing SQL on Windows 2008 clusters in an environment where you could not even start to install without the SP itself being slipstreamed. So whether you pick at the nit or not, it still is a very good piece of information to know and therefore a good question.
July 29, 2011 at 7:35 am
I have to say that the correct answer is not worded in such a way as to make much sense. It says "Install fails because SQL 2005 can't be installed with an odd number of physical or logical processors" which is just plain wrong. It WILL install with a single processor with no problem. The article at least clearly states what is defined as the correct reason it fails. The reason I chose that it would install correctly is because I had eliminated the even processor count as incorrect because I know that it will install with a single processor with no issue.
Interesting question on a old version of sql, horrible wording on the correct answer. Seems that my sneek-o-meter failed me today.
_______________________________________________________________
Need help? Help us help you.
Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.
Need to split a string? Try Jeff Modens splitter http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Tally+Table/72993/.
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/T-SQL/63681/
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Crosstab/65048/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69953/
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2) - http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/APPLY/69954/
July 29, 2011 at 7:49 am
Meet George Jetson (7/29/2011)
Not to nitpick, but even the article referenced stated - "On a computer that has a multicore processor, you may be unable to install SQL Server 2005"The optimal word being "may."
You took that out of context. Sure that's the title of the article but the rest of the article describes the conditions where the installation will fail. In short, the title is correct that not all multicore processor installations will fail so the word "may" is right.
July 29, 2011 at 9:13 am
cengland0 (7/29/2011)
Carlton Leach (7/29/2011)
SQL can't be installed on a single socket machine?Carlton.
It can. One is a power of two (2^0).
According to the reference:
The ratio between logical processors and physical sockets is not a power of 2. For example, the computer has a single socket together with a triple-core processor.
Besides, the problem was fixed in SP2.
I have the feeling I'm going to feel dumb once this is explained to me, but I gotta ask - why did the install fail in the author's case?
3 quad core processors = 12 or 24 CPU's (24 since I'm not sure if the CPUs were HT or not, or how SQL Server 'sees' CPUs with HT)
So, the ratio of CPUs to sockets is 12/3=4 or 24/3=8.
2^2 = 4, and 2^3 = 8 so both are a power of two.
What am I missing?
July 29, 2011 at 9:27 am
cengland0 (7/29/2011)
Carlton Leach (7/29/2011)
SQL can't be installed on a single socket machine?Carlton.
It can. One is a power of two (2^0).
My point exactly, "can't be installed with an odd number of physical or logical processors."
Carlton.
July 29, 2011 at 10:02 am
First, I would like to say that as it said in the question, this was during a DR test.
I've never used a "slipstreamed" install before, and if it is similar to method 1 in the article where you use the HOTFIXPATCH parameter on the install, this didn't work for me. I had to run the install, then replace Sqlservr.exe and Sqlos.dll while on the "Retry or Cancel" button, then hit "Retry". All that being said, I didn't think to mention that it was RTM, if for no other reason then if you don't mention a patch level software is generally assumed to be at RTM. Or at least I always do. Next time I do a QOD though I will make sure to add RTM, since this was supposed to be an interesting learning question, not a trick one.
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.
I'm actually surprised to hear that anyone else has had this problem, let alone multiple times since I was assured by my server team that this was highly unusual.
And last but not least, scunningham you shouldn't feel dumb at all. The important thing here though is that there were THREE quad cores. Or in this case 3 physical processors, each one split into 4 logical.
I have to admit I posted the question more because I thought it was an interesting problem, and didn't want anyone else to get caught out unawares, particularly since when all you have to go on is
The SQL Server service failed to start. For more information, see the SQL Server Books Online topics, "How to: View SQL Server 2005 Setup Log Files" and "Starting SQL Server Manually."
It can be a real bear to find a solution.
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]
July 29, 2011 at 10:23 am
scunningham 38251 (7/29/2011)
3 quad core processors = 12 or 24 CPU's (24 since I'm not sure if the CPUs were HT or not, or how SQL Server 'sees' CPUs with HT)So, the ratio of CPUs to sockets is 12/3=4 or 24/3=8.
2^2 = 4, and 2^3 = 8 so both are a power of two.
What am I missing?
That's a good question and all I can say is that a ratio is not always divided. The ratio of CPUS to sockets should be written as 12:3 not 12/3.
An example:
If orange juice concentrate is to be diluted with water in the ratio 1:4, then one part of concentrate is mixed with four parts of water, giving five parts total; the fraction of concentrate is 1/5 and the fraction of water is 4/5.
Notice it's not 25% orange juice as you would think.
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 48 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply