64 bit

Question

64 bit

Viewing 9 posts - 31 through 38 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125561 More actions · Answer 1

Gift Peddie (12/27/2010)
MSDN downloads and DVD/CD are AnyCPU binaries so Microsoft can provide x64 and AnyCPU builds that will install in x86 operating systems for developers and testing. In RDBMS everybody lies and I mean everybody lies about what is actually available

Not everyone has a MSDN subscription, and I think that a license for at least SQL Server Standard edition is required for QA environments, and not just a single user Developer edition.

Are you saying that Oracle 11g isn't supported on the 32bit versions Windows 2003 or 2008 server? What lies are you referring to?

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Gift Peddie SSC Guru Points: 73570 More actions · Answer 2

Eric Russell 13013 (12/28/2010)
Gift Peddie (12/27/2010)
MSDN downloads and DVD/CD are AnyCPU binaries so Microsoft can provide x64 and AnyCPU builds that will install in x86 operating systems for developers and testing. In RDBMS everybody lies and I mean everybody lies about what is actually available
Not everyone has a MSDN subscription, and I think that a license for at least SQL Server Standard edition is required for QA environments, and not just a single user Developer edition.
Are you saying that Oracle 11g isn't supported on the 32bit versions Windows 2003 or 2008 server? What lies are you referring to?

I am saying Microsoft can provide AnyCPU build of future SQL Server if needed, because SQL Server 2005 Express comes only in x86 but when Vista and Windows 2008 were released AnyCPU build of SQL Server 2005 Express a free product was created for Vista x64 users.

The lies relates to how long Oracle takes to provide x64 Oracle 11g client for Windows 2008, 2008 R2 and Windows 7, so users of all of the above for a long time can only develop x86 Microsoft platform applications.

Kind regards,
Gift Peddie

Revenant SSC-Forever Points: 42467 More actions · Answer 3

Eric Russell 13013 (12/28/2010)
Not everyone has a MSDN subscription, and I think that a license for at least SQL Server Standard edition is required for QA environments, and not just a single user Developer edition. ...

If you do any Business Intelligence, you need at least the Enterprise Edition.

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125561 More actions · Answer 4

Revenant (12/28/2010)
If you do any Business Intelligence, you need at least the Enterprise Edition.

Of course the BI group doesn't always get the biggest budget, and often times they're working with the hand-me-down x86 server or a 32bit version of Windows 2003.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Paul White SSC Guru Points: 150467 More actions · Answer 5

I think that removing 32bit support from the next version of SQL Server would be a huge technical and marketing mistake, and even long time users would be slower to upgrade than they normally are.

32-bit support is not being removed in the next version - it just won't have AWE support, so you would need to run a 64-bit OS to access over 4GB of physical memory.

Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi

Jeff Moden SSC Guru Points: 1004363 More actions · Answer 6

SQLkiwi (12/20/2010)
I was hoping Denali (SQL11) would be 64-bit only, but at least they have clarified its target usage by removing 32-bit AWE, so 32-bit OS servers will only support up to 4GB of system memory.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms144262(v=sql.110).aspx
https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/625356/awe-switch-is-not-supported-in-sql-server-denali-ctp1-any-more

I just love the way companies like MS force you to upgrade... at gunpoint. They'll still sell you stuff so it's not like they're all holy about 64 bit or anything but they went out of the way to knock your knees out if you happen to not have the money to update your servers.

--Jeff Moden

RBAR is pronounced "ree-bar" and is a "Modenism" for Row-By-Agonizing-Row.
First step towards the paradigm shift of writing Set Based code:
________Stop thinking about what you want to do to a ROW... think, instead, of what you want to do to a COLUMN.

Change is inevitable... Change for the better is not.

Helpful Links:
How to post code problems
How to Post Performance Problems
Create a Tally Function (fnTally)

paul.knibbs SSCoach Points: 15320 More actions · Answer 7

Jeff Moden (12/28/2010)
I just love the way companies like MS force you to upgrade... at gunpoint. They'll still sell you stuff so it's not like they're all holy about 64 bit or anything but they went out of the way to knock your knees out if you happen to not have the money to update your servers.

I don't see a problem with this. As I noted above, 64-bit support on the hardware side has been pretty much universal for at least four years now, and dropping a complicated feature like AWE which is going to be required on fewer and fewer installations allows more time to work on other features. Besides, by the time SQL 2008 R2 leaves mainstream support it'll be around a decade since 64-bit became universal--is anyone really still going to be running mission-critical stuff on hardware that's more than ten years old?

Eric M Russell SSC Guru Points: 125561 More actions · Answer 8

paul.knibbs (12/29/2010)

I don't see a problem with this. As I noted above, 64-bit support on the hardware side has been pretty much universal for at least four years now, and dropping a complicated feature like AWE which is going to be required on fewer and fewer installations allows more time to work on other features. Besides, by the time SQL 2008 R2 leaves mainstream support it'll be around a decade since 64-bit became universal--is anyone really still going to be running mission-critical stuff on hardware that's more than ten years old?

Back in 2002, it would be rare, perhaps impossible, to see a production database server still running on a 1992 model 80486 with 16MB of memory. However, I could easily see a server purchased in 2005 still in production in 2015, tucked away in a corporate closet somewhere or even operating a small business or non-profit.

"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho

Steve Jones - SSC Editor SSC Guru Points: 736270 More actions · Answer 9

paul.knibbs (12/29/2010)
Jeff Moden (12/28/2010)
I just love the way companies like MS force you to upgrade... at gunpoint. They'll still sell you stuff so it's not like they're all holy about 64 bit or anything but they went out of the way to knock your knees out if you happen to not have the money to update your servers.
I don't see a problem with this. As I noted above, 64-bit support on the hardware side has been pretty much universal for at least four years now, and dropping a complicated feature like AWE which is going to be required on fewer and fewer installations allows more time to work on other features. Besides, by the time SQL 2008 R2 leaves mainstream support it'll be around a decade since 64-bit became universal--is anyone really still going to be running mission-critical stuff on hardware that's more than ten years old?

Yes, but there's lots more than mission critical. It's not that companies have *no* 64 bit servers, but that they will continue to have x86 ones around and they will reuse the hardware, perhaps for dev, for smaller apps, etc. It's easy to dismiss those servers, but I've always had lots of "other" servers that were important to someone in companies of any size. Whacking x86 completely could be a problem for some of them. They'll upgrade at times to a newer SQL version, but reuse hardware.

I would also bet some people have been buying x86 up until the last year or two. I know last year systems were still be advertised as "64-bit" as opposed to now where everything is just 64 bit. That meant that there were people paying a premium (or unwilling to do so) that were buying x86 just because. Or because they assumed they'd have to upgrade everything (Office, Fax software etc). to x64.

I would guess that by 2015, an x86 system will be rare, but if people are still running SQL Serverv6.5, they will still be around. Will it matter? Not really, and I don't expect most software to deliver an x86 version by then.