The 64-bit Question
-
It's coming and you better get used to it. I was surprised by the number of people I've met recently running 64-bit servers, which have seemed like a niche market to me, but that's going to change. Sometime around 2010, most of us will be moving to 64-bit for everything.
It was announced last week that Windows 2008 will be the last 32-bit OS and that Vista is already the last 32-bit desktop OS. Last year we saw Exchange move away from 32-bit, with the newest version only available in the 64-bit flavor. There have been more versions of other software for 64-bit, but it hasn't seem to really catch on.
And it's not necessarily faster. In an Analysis Services performance talk I attended recently, they cautioned that unless you are memory constrained, you might not see any benefit moving to 64-bit and could in fact see worse performance.
I haven't heard anything about SQL Server, and with SQL Server 2008 coming next year and a good portion of the codebase running on smaller machines (Developer, Express, and Compact editions), I'm not sure it makes sense to limit sales. But I'd bet that either SQL Server 2011 or the version after that will be 64-bit only.
So what should you do?
I'd think about buying some stock in Intel or AMD. As more software moves to 64-bit only editions, there's bound to be a nice upsurge in server replacements on this new platform. And think about how many desktops for developers and admins will likely need to be replaced with the upgrades to the version after Vista.
PS - Please join me in wishing my wife and I a Happy Anniversary!
-
I volunteered for the SQL Server 64bits project back in 2001, I have not used 64bits SQL Server in production but I have not used 32bits Oracle since Oracle 8i. I don't think all companies will migrate all OS but RDBMS it is needed because it gives you more memory space to use. I think Windows is keeping SQL Server in 32bits so that move is good news. Application is a different story because moving to 64bits will take rewrite of most of the application.
Happy anniversary Mrs. Jones!!
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
Happy anniversary to you both!
The move to 64-bit may cause some companies and individuals problems. I know the company I work for won't like having to upgrade the servers, PCs and laptops; too expensive. Also I have just upgraded my home PC and don't wish to have to do this again in a hurry due to family commitments. This may be an area where the various Linux flavours gain some ground. If Microsoft won't supply a 32-bit OS people may go elsewhere, particularly if the OS is free. I know that at the moment Linux installations can be very complex but the complexity is lessening over time. Just my two cents worth!
Cheers,
Nicole
Nicole Bowman
Nothing is forever.
-
I've looked at moving to SQL 2000 64-bit then found that you cant use the DTS tools on the 64bit server!!!!
I've heard various stories on 64-bit being faster for very large databases, but how much memory does the server need to see a noticeably performance?
-
Happy aniversary,
We're busy migrating from Itanium 2's in production to quad socket dual core x64 cpus, hopefully they'll be a lot better as they've doubled the clock speed since we put the itaniums in
-
The more bits, the merrier...
Happy anniversary !
-
We probably have 400 Windows servers here and of them about 25 SQL Servers. We installed our first SQL 2005 and we did it on 64 just because we see the writing on the wall. Soon 64 bit will be it. I have just been waiting for Microsoft to make the statement that the next operating system will only be 64 bit. 32 bit will be obsolete eventually. All of our Oracle stuff is 64 bit and has been for some time. I guess my question is why is everyone surprised .. ?? Yes, it will mean new hardware, but, eventually all hardware is replaced just do it then.
Happy Anniversary too !!!!!
-
Happy anniversary Steve, and Mrs. Steve 🙂
I'm quite surprised at the posts this morning. Yesterday's thread had more religious overtones:-) Maybe 64 bit issues don't bring the emotions to the table that the OS wars have generated.
Thanks to all for your input, I read Steve's thread most days...
-
I read an article in SQLServer Standard yesterday that made me think that we should, perhaps, move to 64 bit when we upgrade to SQL 2005.
But the fact that it may not be any faster and the complications with DTS not working on SQL 2000 64 bit have made me think again.
-
We are in the process of getting to 64-bit. Luckily our servers can run 64 bit, but for some reason they did not go 64 bit when they moved to SQL2005. I got here too late in the process to change it (like, first thing I did at this job was upgrade from 2000 to 2005). They got bad advice from a vendor, they were told they needed SQL 2005 Enterprise to go to 64 bit, which of course moves you into a whole other realm of cost for SQL.
I don't see any reason why you would not go to 64-bit at this point with SQL2005 if you are in the process of upgrading. Most of the servers on the market now are 64-bit capable anyhow. If you are testing to move from 2000 to 2005, why not get the testing to go to 64-bit out of the way at the same time?
The memory issue alone is enough to make it worthwhile....
Happy Anniversary!
-
Happy Anniversary, Mr. and Mrs. Jones!
:{> Andy
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
-
Mr. & Mrs. Jones,
WISH YOU A H A P P Y A N N I V E R S A R Y!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
\(.|.)/.........
-
o O o O OoOo. .oOoO' .oOo. .oOo. O o o o O o O o O o o O o O o O o O o O O o O o `OoO'o oOoO' oOoO' `OoOO O O o o' o' OoO' o .oOoO' 'OoOo. 'OoOo. O `o O .oOo. `OoOo. .oOo .oOoO' `OoOo. O o O o o O o O o O o OooO' o `Ooo. O o o o O o O O o O o O o O O O O o O O O o `OoO'o o O o O o' `o' `OoO' o `OoO' `OoO'o o `OoOO o OoO'
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply