Who Needs a 64-bit Desktop?
-
It's an interesting question in this editorial piece and one that I used to ask as well. Who of us needs 64-bit on the server, much less the desktop at this time? I used to think this was really a pipe dream and all the presentations at TechEd and other events last year seemed overhyped. But I can tell you who needs 64-bit desktops now.
Developers.
Especially the Exchange developers who will get the next version of that product at the end of this year, or more likely, in 2007. With the next version of your product ready for testing, you do not want to be working out the bugs of your newest desktop system. Soon is the time to start breaking in a new desktop and learning about any issues with the Visual Studio tools, plug ins, etc.
For now, however, it would seem that SQL Server 2005 DBAs and developers might want to consider one, along with a 64-bit server version. I have been skeptical of the benefits of 64-bit SQL Server, but as I've studied it and researched some of the changes with the larger memory space, it seems that quite a few of the servers I used to manage could benefit from 64-bit.
And I could consolidate. Moving to a larger memory space, say even 32GB on a 4 or 8 way system could consolidate quite a few other servers. Perhaps enough to make it a low cost alternative if you are considering server upgrades.
I know that supposedly you could develop applications, especially SQL Server ones with a 32 bit desktop, but I'd be nervous about issues. The last thing you want to debug is the 32-bit thunking from 64-bit along with other bugs.
Steve Jones
-
Consolidating to one large box is fine is if the applications those databases support are relatively stable.
ON must really be certan that they will 'play well together'.
-
Application development for omic analysis (genomic, proteomic, etc.). In that space, 4 GB is nothing.
-
I just wonder is the additional memory space going to allow the 64 bit app to use more of it like 22 GIG's of RAM for a SQL SERVER sounds rather satisfying, or more likely let multiple apps have '4 gigs'.
-
I just setup a 64bit Sql Server 2005 (Standard Edition) with Windows 2003 (Standard Edition) on an HP DL385 2 x Opteron 280 (Dual-core) w/ 16GB RAM and 6 x 73GB 15K RPM (RAID10).
It was an upgrade from a fully loaded 32bit (OS and Sql) Dell 2850 Dual 3.6Ghz Xeon with 4GB RAM.
These machines cost roughly the same (+/- $2,000) .... And there is simply no comparison; at first I was nervous to upgrade to such a new product and platform, as I did not know anyone who had actually done what I was plotting
.I have no regrets - it was the best thing I could have done for my growing IT systems infrastructure.
It has been so solid and reliable (months without needing to reboot - even with Microsoft's frequent patch-release cycle).
BTW, It is a standalone DB server, so we did not have to worry about other software compatibility (front-end servers are currently all 32bit).
-
John,
Interesting to see. I have two friends who've upgraded. One had major driver issues and it was very slow. Another had it work ok, but most of his "toys" (Garmin, MP3 player, etc) didn't work on 64-bit.
Glad it's worked for you.
Steve
-
I have tried to setup a seperate partition on my main Dev. machine with Windows XP x64. Lets just say that got real ugly, real fast
.But then again, I do have a highly customized workstation (AMD FX-60 Overclocked at 4.1Ghz!, phase-change cooling w/ CPU:-35!, 4GB RAM, 2 x X1900 XTX (and no, I don't play games, just write code
), 4TB RAID1+0 WD Raptor 150GB SATA external drive arrays). I can EASILY get a PCMark score well over 10,000, much higher than any other posted score 
. Though, I once got 16,900 followed immediately by a curious score of 2,200; maybe PCMark wasn't supposed to count that high.Anyway, I think I'll just get an HP xw9300 Workstation (I think that's the right model) so I can experiment with a 64-bit development platform. I'll *try* post updated info regarding my 64-bit [mis-]adventures.
- Dan!
-
22GB? I have a production system that has 48GB of memory in it, 44GB assigned to SQL Server. Runs beautifully, just takes a week to shutdown.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverabilityWe walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass
Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply