64-bit

Hello,
I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
to a 64 bit system running sql server? What kind of problems can i run into
changing to sql 64 bit or only advantages... Are there benchmark tables
available on the internet?
thanks,
Tune-a
> I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
> to a 64 bit system running sql server?
Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
advantage of the advanced CPUs...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/
|||Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of a
64 bit system?
At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying both
databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least) 50%
growth of webusers the next 4 months.
We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of them
The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
with sql server...
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:ONpBx6HMEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
change
> Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
> advantage of the advanced CPUs...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>
|||Tuna
I have been testing SQL Server performance on 64 bit in our company for over
two months
Look, try to perfom a large transactions especially if you are going to
deal with lots of INSERT's.To make the story shorten,
personally I did not get a feeeling that we should go with it. Almost the
same response time on the client site,
aslo when I backuped a database (15 gb) i was expected at least to speed up
the procsess on 64-bit but it was really the time. So as Aaaron says
:"Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
advantage of the advanced CPUs..."
"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:#bEiFJIMEHA.2500@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of
a
> 64 bit system?
> At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
> seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying
both
> databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least)
50%
> growth of webusers the next 4 months.
> We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
> 1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
> 2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of
them
> The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
> important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
> with sql server...
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:ONpBx6HMEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> change
>
|||"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:#bEiFJIMEHA.2500@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of
a
> 64 bit system?
> At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
> seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying
both
> databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least)
50%
> growth of webusers the next 4 months.
> We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
> 1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
> 2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of
them
> The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
> important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
> with sql server...
you've made a few comments about what's going though the pipe but you
haven't said if there's a problem with it and, assuming there is a problem,
what you have found about where the problem may lie
the short story is there is not enough information here to consider the need
for 64 bit ... fwiw, my nose tells me that you probably do not need it ...
read the TPC benchmarks, flesh out the analysis; it's a completely empirical
problem
|||"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:OTNlD0HMEHA.3332@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
> to a 64 bit system running sql server?
The main difference with 64bit is that SQL Server can directly access more
than 4GB of RAM.
So if you need more than 4GB of RAM then go for 64bit, otherwise consider
carefully where you should go for 64bit processors or would improving some
other aspect of your server spec be of more benefit, e.g. faster disks

64-bit

Hello,
I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
to a 64 bit system running sql server? What kind of problems can i run into
changing to sql 64 bit or only advantages... Are there benchmark tables
available on the internet?
thanks,
Tune-a> I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
> to a 64 bit system running sql server?
Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
advantage of the advanced CPUs...
Aaron Bertrand
SQL Server MVP
http://www.aspfaq.com/|||Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of a
64 bit system?
At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying both
databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least) 50%
growth of webusers the next 4 months.
We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of them
The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
with sql server...
"Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
news:ONpBx6HMEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
change[vbcol=seagreen]
> Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
> advantage of the advanced CPUs...
> --
> Aaron Bertrand
> SQL Server MVP
> http://www.aspfaq.com/
>|||Tuna
I have been testing SQL Server performance on 64 bit in our company for over
two months
Look, try to perfom a large transactions especially if you are going to
deal with lots of INSERT's.To make the story shorten,
personally I did not get a feeeling that we should go with it. Almost the
same response time on the client site,
aslo when I backuped a database (15 gb) i was expected at least to speed up
the procsess on 64-bit but it was really the time. So as Aaaron says
:"Really depends on what you are doing... not everything is able to take
advantage of the advanced CPUs..."
"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:#bEiFJIMEHA.2500@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of
a
> 64 bit system?
> At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
> seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying
both
> databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least)
50%
> growth of webusers the next 4 months.
> We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
> 1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
> 2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of
them
> The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
> important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
> with sql server...
>
> "Aaron Bertrand [MVP]" <aaron@.TRASHaspfaq.com> wrote in message
> news:ONpBx6HMEHA.268@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> change
>|||"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:#bEiFJIMEHA.2500@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...

> Which feautures of sql server 2000 are not capable of taking advantage of
a
> 64 bit system?
> At this moment 2 dual 3.2 Ghz (1.5 ram) xeons are handeling 800 kbits per
> seconds of inserts (replication) and roundabout 2000 webusers querying
both
> databases.. We expect a groth of 50% on data inserts and also (at least)
50%
> growth of webusers the next 4 months.
> We have to make a decision about 'the new solution':
> 1. buy 2 big machines (32 or 64 bit), one for redundancy
> 2. buy more 'less expensive' machines and put loadbalancers in front of
them
> The easiest way is buying the big machines... If we go for that it's
> important to know the pro's and con's about 64-bit machines in combination
> with sql server...
you've made a few comments about what's going though the pipe but you
haven't said if there's a problem with it and, assuming there is a problem,
what you have found about where the problem may lie
the short story is there is not enough information here to consider the need
for 64 bit ... fwiw, my nose tells me that you probably do not need it ...
read the TPC benchmarks, flesh out the analysis; it's a completely empirical
problem|||"Tuna" <hier@.onetwotres.123> wrote in message
news:OTNlD0HMEHA.3332@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
> to a 64 bit system running sql server?
The main difference with 64bit is that SQL Server can directly access more
than 4GB of RAM.
So if you need more than 4GB of RAM then go for 64bit, otherwise consider
carefully where you should go for 64bit processors or would improving some
other aspect of your server spec be of more benefit, e.g. faster disks

64 bit

Hello,
I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
to a 64 bit system running sql server? What kind of problems can i run into
changing to sql 64 bit or only advantages... Are there benchmark tables
available on the internet?
thanks,
Tune-a
That's an interesting question. The advantages and disadvantages exist only
in the light of the context of use.
Since the release of SQL Server 7.0 in 1998, SQL Server has been on the
enterprise fast track, easily clearing the hurdles that hindered the
adoption of earlier SQL Server versions in the enterprise. Support for a
new scale-out technology called distributed partitioned views boosted SQL
Server to the top of the TPC-C rankings for clustered database systems.
(TPC-C is a standard benchmark for database systems, designed by the
Transaction Performance Processing Councilor TPCwhich consists of all the
major database vendors. The TPC-C test measures transactions per minuteor
tpmC.). The new SQL Server 2000 64-bit Enterprise Edition (formerly
code-named Liberty) moves SQL Server even closer to the peaks of enterprise
scalability.
Obviously, the primary requirements for running the 64-bit edition of SQL
Server are 64-bit hardware and a 64-bit OS. For the OS, SQL Server 2000
64-bit Enterprise Edition requires the Windows Server 2003 64-bit Edition,
which runs only on systems built on the new 64-bit Intel Itanium CPU.
Start your reading with this article on MSDN:
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 (64-bit): Intel Itanium Processor Touchstone
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/dnsecure/ht
ml/intelitanium.asp?frame=true
Also, visit this external article
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Ar...79/pg/2/2.html
and view Figure 1 which shows performance of SQL 64 bit on different
hardware platforms.
Hope this helps.
Sanchan [MSFT]
sanchans@.online.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

64 bit

Hello,
I was wondering what kind of performance increase can I expect if i change
to a 64 bit system running sql server? What kind of problems can i run into
changing to sql 64 bit or only advantages... Are there benchmark tables
available on the internet?
thanks,
Tune-aThat's an interesting question. The advantages and disadvantages exist only
in the light of the context of use.
Since the release of SQL Server 7.0 in 1998, SQL Server has been on the
enterprise fast track, easily clearing the hurdles that hindered the
adoption of earlier SQL Server versions in the enterprise. Support for a
new scale-out technology called distributed partitioned views boosted SQL
Server to the top of the TPC-C rankings for clustered database systems.
(TPC-C is a standard benchmark for database systems, designed by the
Transaction Performance Processing Councilor TPCwhich consists of all the
major database vendors. The TPC-C test measures transactions per minuteor
tpmC.). The new SQL Server 2000 64-bit Enterprise Edition (formerly
code-named Liberty) moves SQL Server even closer to the peaks of enterprise
scalability.
Obviously, the primary requirements for running the 64-bit edition of SQL
Server are 64-bit hardware and a 64-bit OS. For the OS, SQL Server 2000
64-bit Enterprise Edition requires the Windows Server 2003 64-bit Edition,
which runs only on systems built on the new 64-bit Intel Itanium CPU.
Start your reading with this article on MSDN:
Microsoft SQL Server 2000 (64-bit): Intel Itanium Processor Touchstone
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/d...-us/dnsecure/ht
ml/intelitanium.asp?frame=true
Also, visit this external article
http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/A...779/pg/2/2.html
and view Figure 1 which shows performance of SQL 64 bit on different
hardware platforms.
Hope this helps.
Sanchan [MSFT]
sanchans@.online.microsoft.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.