64 bit SQL

Why bother? Planning on building new servers in the next 6 months. Any point
in dumping 32 bit?
Bob Castleman
DBA PoseurBob,
A little more background would help; What is your memory utilization like
in 32-bit? Are in in an Active/Active cluster and unable to take advantage
of AWE? What are some characteristics of your workload? With the
information I have right now I couldn't even help you choose your next car,
let-alone where your I.T. budget dollars need to go. =)
"Bob Castleman" wrote:

> Why bother? Planning on building new servers in the next 6 months. Any poi
nt
> in dumping 32 bit?
> Bob Castleman
> DBA Poseur
>
>|||Not enough info. Guilty as charged.
Current environment is a two node active-passive cluster. Currently 4
processors, 16 gig RAM. going to add 4 procs and 16 Gigs Ram this wend.
Fiber chanel to an array.
We are looking into a building a cluster with more nodes
(Active-Active-Passive, maybe).
Biggest problems are that the application is a port from an Access database
and we serve the appliction to about 200 customers, growing fast (20% per
quarter). It has not, and very likely will never be, optimized in any
meanigful way for SQL Server. Another fun thing is that each instance of
the application creates multiple database connections and leaves them open
until the user exits. This amounts to thousands of open connections at peak
times.
Bob
"Cris_Benge" <CrisBenge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCDD3C51-759C-4BAD-BD5B-A0B64E874B7D@.microsoft.com...
> Bob,
> A little more background would help; What is your memory utilization like
> in 32-bit? Are in in an Active/Active cluster and unable to take
> advantage
> of AWE? What are some characteristics of your workload? With the
> information I have right now I couldn't even help you choose your next
> car,
> let-alone where your I.T. budget dollars need to go. =)
>
> "Bob Castleman" wrote:
>|||"Bob Castleman" <nomail@.here> wrote in message
news:Op22C6GbFHA.2124@.TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Why bother? Planning on building new servers in the next 6 months. Any
point
> in dumping 32 bit?
> Bob Castleman
> DBA Poseur
>
Any point in staying 32-bit?
Buy dual-core capable Opteron machines. The licensing fee structure makes it
irresponsible to buy anything else.|||I'd get a 2005 Ford Mustang 4.6L, Dark Platinum with Charcoal leather...
"Cris_Benge" <CrisBenge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:DCDD3C51-759C-4BAD-BD5B-A0B64E874B7D@.microsoft.com...
> Bob,
> A little more background would help; What is your memory utilization like
> in 32-bit? Are in in an Active/Active cluster and unable to take
advantage
> of AWE? What are some characteristics of your workload? With the
> information I have right now I couldn't even help you choose your next
car,
> let-alone where your I.T. budget dollars need to go. =)
>
> "Bob Castleman" wrote:
>
point|||I had an '02 GT Couple with a Vortech SQ trim blower and 4.10 rear gears...
and then Indiana winter taught me a lesson about traction and physics. =/
"Ty Salistean" wrote:

> I'd get a 2005 Ford Mustang 4.6L, Dark Platinum with Charcoal leather...
> "Cris_Benge" <CrisBenge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCDD3C51-759C-4BAD-BD5B-A0B64E874B7D@.microsoft.com...
> advantage
> car,
> point
>
>|||Superficially (based on what you've provided), I wouldn't bother going to 64
bit until the situation is more under control. All real-world reports I've
heard of are having various issues with 64-bit handling some of the basic
functionality 32-bit delivers without issue (memory leak in the dynamic proc
cache, issues with linked servers, replication, etc). If your app isn't
tuned yet, you're going to get more bang for your buck throwing intelligent
design at it instead of 64-bit / hardware.
"Bob Castleman" wrote:

> Not enough info. Guilty as charged.
> Current environment is a two node active-passive cluster. Currently 4
> processors, 16 gig RAM. going to add 4 procs and 16 Gigs Ram this wend.
> Fiber chanel to an array.
> We are looking into a building a cluster with more nodes
> (Active-Active-Passive, maybe).
> Biggest problems are that the application is a port from an Access databas
e
> and we serve the appliction to about 200 customers, growing fast (20% per
> quarter). It has not, and very likely will never be, optimized in any
> meanigful way for SQL Server. Another fun thing is that each instance of
> the application creates multiple database connections and leaves them open
> until the user exits. This amounts to thousands of open connections at pea
k
> times.
> Bob
>
> "Cris_Benge" <CrisBenge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:DCDD3C51-759C-4BAD-BD5B-A0B64E874B7D@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi
I agree with Cris.
Whilst you are at it, why not buy a Unisys ES 7000?
If it is easier to throw pots of money at a bad application to buy hardware,
you might as well buy the top of the range as you will probably still need
it soon.
Get the application fixed, and save yourself a lot of trouble. Eventually
you will not be able to scale up any more and your business grinds to a
halt.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"Cris_Benge" <CrisBenge@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:90A70D9A-95AA-4CA8-96D2-678DD574F3C2@.microsoft.com...
> Superficially (based on what you've provided), I wouldn't bother going to
> 64
> bit until the situation is more under control. All real-world reports
> I've
> heard of are having various issues with 64-bit handling some of the basic
> functionality 32-bit delivers without issue (memory leak in the dynamic
> proc
> cache, issues with linked servers, replication, etc). If your app isn't
> tuned yet, you're going to get more bang for your buck throwing
> intelligent
> design at it instead of 64-bit / hardware.
> "Bob Castleman" wrote:
>