CPU/Mobo shocker for intel !!!

dipdude

Skilled
source : zdnet
disclaimer : i dont hate intel(dont love them either :no:)

Hyperthreading hurts server performance, say developers

Intel had stated that hyperthreading's performance advantages would show once threaded software became available, but it appears that in some cases the opposite is true
Intel's Hyperthreading Technology (HT) is being blamed for server performance problems.

With both SQL Server and Citrix Terminal Server installations, HT-enabled motherboards show markedly degraded performance under heavy load. Disabling HT restores expected levels, according to reports from within the IT industry.

"Our customers were complaining about much worse performance than expected when running Citrix Terminal Server and our software on the same machine," said Peter Ibbotson, technical director of UK accounting software company Lakeview Computers.

"We've had fun and games in the past when we've enabled hyperthreading for testing and we'd seen that motherboards had started to arrive with it enabled. When we disabled hyperthreading, performance went back to normal," Ibbotson added.

Hyperthreading allows different elements of a processor to run different code at the same time, which Intel has claimed will boost chip performance and allow a CPU to process nearly twice as much information as one without hyperthreading.

Slava Ocks, a developer working on SQL Server 2005 within Microsoft, reported similar problems in a blog posting earlier this month.

"Our customers observed very interesting behaviour on high-end HT-enabled hardware. They noticed that in some cases when high load is applied SQL Server CPU usage increases significantly but SQL Server performance degrades," wrote Ocks.

Ocks then detailed testing which showed this behaviour where a system thread — in this case one cleaning out blocks of disk cache memory — is running at the same time as worker threads. "With Intel HT technology, logical processors share L1 & L2 caches. As you would guess [this] behaviour can potentially trash L1 & L2 caches," he said.

The on-chip cache exists to speed operation by keeping copies of recently accessed data where it can be accessed without recourse to main system memory — which is much slower by comparison. Where multiple threads access different parts of memory but are simultaneously processed by the chip's Hyperthreading Technology, the shared cache cannot keep up with their alternate demands and performance falls dramatically, according to analysis by Ocks and Ibbotson.

"It's ironic," said Ibbotson. "Intel had sold hyperthreading as something that gave performance gains to heavily threaded software. SQL Server is very thread-intensive, but it suffers. In fact, I've never seen performance improvement on server software with hyperthreading enabled. We recommend customers disable it when running Citrix and our software on the same server."

At the time of writing, Intel had not responded to requests for comment on these claims.

Earlier this year, Intel hyperthreading was revealed to have a security flaw where threads could find information from each other through the shared cache despite having no access to each other's memory space.
 
KingKrool said:
It is not so surprising... there was always talk about how a shared cache would be ineffective, and this underscores it...

Yes true....not only shared cache but also the fact that this is better for streamed instructions only where there is a data flow but the source remains the same and the instructions alike, like say vid encoding...

For data where the instruction type differs and maybe 2 or more instructions attack the same HT thread (where the HT unit cannot discern between discrete threads)....will cause 1 of the logical CPU's to slow down, therefore slowing down both (cause physically there'll be only 1 CPU....
Intel admitted to this part as a flaw in the concept and ultimately in the design, but for vid editing and aud editing and even gaming it worked fine for awhile....... until AMD64's came out the 3.2 and 3.4 gig intel CPU's were virtually running the show.....when compared to the bartons of that time.......

The dual and later on possibly quad core concept was the only way to go, and as die sizes shrink further, refinement inproves...etc we may see 2 CPU's quad cored on a desktop board.......
The only way to improve current days performance is going multi core so HT was a good starter for this concept.....albiet not a hugely successful one.....

Nice post...pal:hap2:
 
Back
Top