Dual Xeon necessary???

[PinkZeppelin]

I will soon be purchasing an HP ML350 server with a Intel Xeon 3ghz processor. I have the option to upgrade and add another Xeon 3ghz to the motherboard, but I'm unsure if it's necessary.
I will be running Windows Server 2003 enterprise with ~50-80 users concurrently logging in to the server.
This will be the only server managing users on the network. It will also run a couple of other programs (maybe), like, Norton Antivirus, microsoft SQL server.
It will be our DNS, WINS, and DHCP server. It will also be a file server for the user's home folder.
I can't think of anything else off the top of my head. Basically I would like to know if I get a second processor will it be utilized effectively.
Or does windows even share the load if it has dual processors?? I know they didn't in the past.
Thanks

 

[mdd1963]

"Or does windows even share the load if it has dual processors?? I know they didn't in the past. "

XP-Pro/Win2k/WinNT4 all support 2 physical cpus, including those with two or more cores per physical cpu....if you can add another cpu cost effectively, it should indeed improve performance, especially if running multiple applications...

 

[Stimpy]

If you are running SQL server get dual CPU's.
Have you factored in any high availability or distaster recovery?
If not rather than having a single dual CPU box get two single core
systems and make sure you can mirror them in some way (via cluster server or some sort of nightly clone).
50~80 users not being able to do anything cos the server is down
can be very costly