We have a client who wants us to order a machine with two dual-core
hyperthreaded processors. Such a machine would appear to the system as
having 8 processors. Now, ordinarily, Windows XP only supports 2
processors. I know that hyperthreading is an exception, so you can get
4 by going with two HT CPUs, but I would have bet money you couldn’t
support 4 HT CPUs.
However, the manufacturer’s rep assures us that they can ship us such a
machine, running XP Pro. Have any of you folks seen such a beast
running XP?
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
When NT first came out it would support 16 processors. I don’t know if MS
has backed off from that but I doubt it.
Tim Roberts wrote:
We have a client who wants us to order a machine with two dual-core
hyperthreaded processors. Such a machine would appear to the system as
having 8 processors. Now, ordinarily, Windows XP only supports 2
processors. I know that hyperthreading is an exception, so you can get
4 by going with two HT CPUs, but I would have bet money you couldn’t
support 4 HT CPUs.
However, the manufacturer’s rep assures us that they can ship us such a
machine, running XP Pro. Have any of you folks seen such a beast
running XP?
Mickey Lane wrote:
When NT first came out it would support 16 processors. I don’t know if
MS has backed off from that but I doubt it.
It’s not a technology issue, it’s a licensing issue. NT Workstation and
2000 Professional was artificially limited to 2 processors. 2000 Server
supported 4. 2000 Advanced Server supported 8. 2000 DataCenter Server
supported 32. XP Home and Pro are advertised as supporting 2. You have
to get Server 2003 to get more than that.
Tim Roberts wrote:
> We have a client who wants us to order a machine with two dual-core
> hyperthreaded processors. Such a machine would appear to the system
> as having 8 processors. Now, ordinarily, Windows XP only supports 2
> processors. I know that hyperthreading is an exception, so you can
> get 4 by going with two HT CPUs, but I would have bet money you
> couldn’t support 4 HT CPUs.
>
> However, the manufacturer’s rep assures us that they can ship us such
> a machine, running XP Pro. Have any of you folks seen such a beast
> running XP?
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
I thought that MS was licensing based on the “physical” number of
processors only. This machine can run XP Professional (2 physical
processors), but should show up in device manager as an 8 processor system.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
Implementation-wise, it’s either a single processor system (1 CPU ->
ntoskrnl.exe), or a multiprocessor system(2-32 CPUs -> ntkrnlmp.exe).
Tim Roberts wrote:
Mickey Lane wrote:
> When NT first came out it would support 16 processors. I don’t know if
> MS has backed off from that but I doubt it.
It’s not a technology issue, it’s a licensing issue. NT Workstation and
2000 Professional was artificially limited to 2 processors. 2000 Server
supported 4. 2000 Advanced Server supported 8. 2000 DataCenter Server
supported 32. XP Home and Pro are advertised as supporting 2. You have
to get Server 2003 to get more than that.
> Tim Roberts wrote:
>
>> We have a client who wants us to order a machine with two dual-core
>> hyperthreaded processors. Such a machine would appear to the system
>> as having 8 processors. Now, ordinarily, Windows XP only supports 2
>> processors. I know that hyperthreading is an exception, so you can
>> get 4 by going with two HT CPUs, but I would have bet money you
>> couldn’t support 4 HT CPUs.
>>
>> However, the manufacturer’s rep assures us that they can ship us such
>> a machine, running XP Pro. Have any of you folks seen such a beast
>> running XP?
>
>
So, does that mean I burned 4 licenses from my MSDN when I installed XP
Pro/SP2 onto my dual XEON wit HT enabled?
–
The personal opinion of
Gary G. Little
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Mickey Lane wrote:
>
>> When NT first came out it would support 16 processors. I don’t know if MS
>> has backed off from that but I doubt it.
>
>
> It’s not a technology issue, it’s a licensing issue. NT Workstation and
> 2000 Professional was artificially limited to 2 processors. 2000 Server
> supported 4. 2000 Advanced Server supported 8. 2000 DataCenter Server
> supported 32. XP Home and Pro are advertised as supporting 2. You have
> to get Server 2003 to get more than that.
>
>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>>
>>> We have a client who wants us to order a machine with two dual-core
>>> hyperthreaded processors. Such a machine would appear to the system as
>>> having 8 processors. Now, ordinarily, Windows XP only supports 2
>>> processors. I know that hyperthreading is an exception, so you can get
>>> 4 by going with two HT CPUs, but I would have bet money you couldn’t
>>> support 4 HT CPUs.
>>>
>>> However, the manufacturer’s rep assures us that they can ship us such a
>>> machine, running XP Pro. Have any of you folks seen such a beast
>>> running XP?
>>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
Michael Becker wrote:
I thought that MS was licensing based on the “physical” number of
processors only. This machine can run XP Professional (2 physical
processors), but should show up in device manager as an 8 processor system.
http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
Implementation-wise, it’s either a single processor system (1 CPU ->
ntoskrnl.exe), or a multiprocessor system(2-32 CPUs -> ntkrnlmp.exe).
You’re right, that’s certainly what it says. My great surprise comes
from the implication that the circa-2002 Windows XP kernel has the
ability to distinguish between a single dual-core chip, and two
single-core chips. I would not have expected that.
Thanks for the link.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Gary G. Little wrote:
So, does that mean I burned 4 licenses from my MSDN when I installed XP
Pro/SP2 onto my dual XEON wit HT enabled?
No, my exploration here was faulty. Licensing was NOT the issue. XP is
not licensed per processor, it is licensed per computer. My fear was
actually regarding the built-in governor, but it seems that goes
strictly by the number of physical processor chips, not by cores or
hyperprocessors.
I guess we will have to buy one, find out for sure, and let y’all know.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
I know for a fact that Windows 2000 does not know about the concept of dual
core or HT chips. A system with a single HT processor shows two CPU’s. A
dual chip HT system again shows only two CPU’s, while server 2003 on the
same system shows 4 processors. I was told that XP is HT aware, it stands
to reason that it is also dual core aware.
At 01:41 PM 10/6/2005, Tim Roberts wrote:
Gary G. Little wrote:
>So, does that mean I burned 4 licenses from my MSDN when I installed XP
>Pro/SP2 onto my dual XEON wit HT enabled?
No, my exploration here was faulty. Licensing was NOT the issue. XP is
not licensed per processor, it is licensed per computer. My fear was
actually regarding the built-in governor, but it seems that goes strictly
by the number of physical processor chips, not by cores or hyperprocessors.
I guess we will have to buy one, find out for sure, and let y’all know.
–
Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Questions? First check the Kernel Driver FAQ at
http://www.osronline.com/article.cfm?id=256
You are currently subscribed to ntdev as: xxxxx@credence.com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to xxxxx@lists.osr.com
Russ Poffenberger
Credence Systems Corp.
xxxxx@credence.com
My NTOSKRNL.exe is dates 1 Mar 2005. It is supposed to work with two
dual-core hyper-threaded processors as if there are only 2 CPUs. I do
wonder what ProcessExplorer and TaskManager look like with 8 CPUs. Might be
a little crowded.
“Tim Roberts” wrote in message news:xxxxx@ntdev…
> Michael Becker wrote:
>
>>I thought that MS was licensing based on the “physical” number of
>>processors only. This machine can run XP Professional (2 physical
>>processors), but should show up in device manager as an 8 processor
>>system.
>>
>>http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/highlights/multicore.mspx
>>
>>Implementation-wise, it’s either a single processor system (1 CPU ->
>>ntoskrnl.exe), or a multiprocessor system(2-32 CPUs -> ntkrnlmp.exe).
>>
>
> You’re right, that’s certainly what it says. My great surprise comes from
> the implication that the circa-2002 Windows XP kernel has the ability to
> distinguish between a single dual-core chip, and two single-core chips. I
> would not have expected that.
>
> Thanks for the link.
>
> –
> Tim Roberts, xxxxx@probo.com
> Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
>
>
> My NTOSKRNL.exe is dates 1 Mar 2005. It is supposed to work with two
dual-core hyper-threaded processors as if there are only 2 CPUs. I do
wonder what ProcessExplorer and TaskManager look like with 8 CPUs. Might
be
a little crowded.
I don’t know about process explorer, but task mangler is just fine with 8
procs.
It does get a little crowded at 32 procs if you have a separate display for
each processor.
I see a lot of full-screen task manager displays around here. 
Loren