Jeff,

Thanks for your post.

The challenge with HT recommendations is that most are based on HT results from older Intel Pentium chips (NetBurst architecture?), and few are based on revised info from newer Intel chips and a comparison of old versus new HT.  I agree that HT results on older chips are not good, and HT should be disabled in those cases until proven to be an advantage (and not a disadvantage).

"Internet search wisdom" is unfortunately jaded on point-in-time cases that may apply at the time but be different later, or may not fully state the conditions on which it applied at the time (NetBurst versus Nehalem, since Nehalem wasn't out at that time).

Recent results from newer Intel HT chips (Nehalem and later) show more favorable results with HT for DB and other workloads, and corresponding recommendations to use HT in those cases.

To simplify discussions for those less technically inclined, I refer to the older Intel chips as "Bad HT" (as in "don't waste your time") and the newer Intel chips as "Good HT" (as in "well worth your time").

Does this match any other feedback you are finding?

BTW - good to talk with you at the TechStravaganza event in Atlanta recently.

Scott R.