Networks

Ask something
Question Locked

Logically Removing Processors

0 helpful
13 replies

by bizzo

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

I have a customer who wants to reduce the number of active processors in several of their servers.

The server I'm testing on is an HP ProLiant BL680c G5 with 16GB memory, 4 quad core processors running Windows Server 2003 R2 Enterprise Edition.

The only way I've found so far is to use the /NUMPROC= switch in the boot.ini.

Adding /NUMPROC=12 and rebooting is fine, task mamager shows 12 processors.
Adding /NUMPROC=8 is fine, it shows 8 processors.

But adding /NUMPROC=4 causes problems. The server is functional, and again, shows it as running on only 4 processors, but we use HP Network Configuration Utility to team a couple of the NICs. This fails, saying that a required xml file is corrupt and cannot be read. So the teaming software bombs out, breaks the team, and the NIC ends up having the status of disconnected.

Changing the processors back up to 8 resolves the teaming problem, and all's OK again!

The question is: Is there any other way to limit the number of functioning processors, other than the boot.ini? I've looked in the BIOS and the only option I have is to use all the cores in all the processors, or to use half the cores in all the processors, which is not what the customer wants.

Alternatively, is there fix for the failing teaming software?

Thanks for looking, hope you can help.

13 replies

by cmiller5400

Why? Isn't that the point of quad cores, to do more work? Or do they pay per processor for licensing of some application?

Just doesn't make sense...

by bizzo

They pay the licensing monthly, per processor for all their servers. At the moment most of the servers are massively underutilised. So reducing the number of processors, and having the ability to easily increase them when needed will save a few thousand pound a month!

by bizzo

In the hope that after the weekend people are feeling fresh and revived and ready to face the week with bright eyed optimism.

Anyone have any brilliant ideas on how I can resolve my little problemette?

By the way, you're all looking GREAT today. Have you had your hair done? It looks fantastic! And I don't know if you've joined a new gym recently, but whatever you're doing, it's working, you look fab. :D

Thanks for looking, hopefully helping, and I hope you have an outstanding day, you deserve it!

by bizzo

I'm trying to butter you all up in the hope you can help, I don't know why I bother. Pah!

Just another bump, hopefully it will make you feel guilty. :D

by tmalo627

checked with HP regarding the corrupt xml file to see if they have a fix? Or if you can download a new copy of it?

by bizzo

It's not actually a corrupt xml file, I've checked it and it's fine, when I reduce the machine to use only 1 x 4 core (/NUMPROC=4), for some reason the teaming software is unable to read the xml file, if I think increase it to use 2 x 4core (/NUMPROC=8), it works fine.

Still scratching my head on this one.

Thanks for your reply.

by slayer_

Why not just replace the server with an off the shelf workstation, install a RAID controller, and be done with it?
Or just get yourself a smaller server with fewer processors.

by bizzo

They're blade servers so it'll be a pain to get them out of the rack etc.

Also, they want the opportunity to increase the processor count (and pay the extra license cost) when they need to, with minimal downtime and risk. Hence the boot.ini option.

We've suggested the smaller servers to start with, but they won't go for the intial outlay of the extra hardware costs, now that they've already bought all these blade servers.

by thumbsup2

... they want their cake and eat it too!

Sometimes, you just have to tell a customer that what they want can't be done with what they've got. This may well be one of those situations. ;)

by rob miners

that you've tried this Registry hack.

http://www.weberdev.com/get_example-486.html

Have you tried modifying the .xml file

by bizzo

Thanks Jacky, but I'm afraid it doesn't work.

I removed the /NUMPROC= entry from the boot.ini and changed the RegisteredProcessors entry from 16 to 4 and rebooted. The NUMBER_OF_PROCESSORS environment variable did change to 4 on reboot, but task manager was still showing 16 processors, and they were all utilised.

I changed the registry entry to 8 and /NUMPROC=8, worked fine, everything showed up as 8 processors, and everything worked.

I then changed the registry entry as 4, and changed /NUMPROC=4, this just sent the machine into a reboot cycle! Luckily booting to last known good resolved it.

I've not tried amending the xml file yet.

This discussion is closed to new replies.