Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8 h/day
shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers and
I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my environment.
Clustering is for hardware failures. If your motherboard or processor dies
you are down until you can replace it. If you can do that within a time
that is acceptable to your business then great, otherwise something like
clustereing or log shipping will get you going a lot faster.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
|||It's "possible", but not "realistic" unless you're a zen master (:
You need to ask (at least) these questions:
(a) what is our REAL availability requirement
(b) what is our real cost of downtime
(c) what solutions are available to me (there is more than just clustering)
(d) what are the TOTAL costs associated with deploying each solutions?
(e) which solution (c) costs least (d) to limit downtime (b) whilst
achieving at least (a)
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
|||What do you mean by 99.99%? Are you counting total uptime, or just
unplanned outages? We don't have 99.99% uptime measured as a total, even
with a cluster and I'm not worried at all. That's not to say that our
servers (Dell 6650's) aren't reliable, they are; we've only had one
unplanned outage in the past year and a half and that was only for about 2
minutes as the cluster failed over... However, between hardware
maintenance/upgrades, and patches--both OS and SQL Server, we have managed
about 99.93% total uptime. But we have managed 100% uptime for business
hours over the past 11 months.
What we have found to be the biggest benefit of clustering is the ability to
do rolling upgrades, thereby reducing the total outage window for any
particular upgrade.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
Showing posts with label hardware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hardware. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2012
99.99% without a cluster ?
Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8 h/day
shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers and
I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my environment.Clustering is for hardware failures. If your motherboard or processor dies
you are down until you can replace it. If you can do that within a time
that is acceptable to your business then great, otherwise something like
clustereing or log shipping will get you going a lot faster.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||It's "possible", but not "realistic" unless you're a zen master (:
You need to ask (at least) these questions:
(a) what is our REAL availability requirement
(b) what is our real cost of downtime
(c) what solutions are available to me (there is more than just clustering)
(d) what are the TOTAL costs associated with deploying each solutions?
(e) which solution (c) costs least (d) to limit downtime (b) whilst
achieving at least (a)
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||What do you mean by 99.99%? Are you counting total uptime, or just
unplanned outages? We don't have 99.99% uptime measured as a total, even
with a cluster and I'm not worried at all. That's not to say that our
servers (Dell 6650's) aren't reliable, they are; we've only had one
unplanned outage in the past year and a half and that was only for about 2
minutes as the cluster failed over... However, between hardware
maintenance/upgrades, and patches--both OS and SQL Server, we have managed
about 99.93% total uptime. But we have managed 100% uptime for business
hours over the past 11 months.
What we have found to be the biggest benefit of clustering is the ability to
do rolling upgrades, thereby reducing the total outage window for any
particular upgrade.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8 h/day
shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers and
I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my environment.Clustering is for hardware failures. If your motherboard or processor dies
you are down until you can replace it. If you can do that within a time
that is acceptable to your business then great, otherwise something like
clustereing or log shipping will get you going a lot faster.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||It's "possible", but not "realistic" unless you're a zen master (:
You need to ask (at least) these questions:
(a) what is our REAL availability requirement
(b) what is our real cost of downtime
(c) what solutions are available to me (there is more than just clustering)
(d) what are the TOTAL costs associated with deploying each solutions?
(e) which solution (c) costs least (d) to limit downtime (b) whilst
achieving at least (a)
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||What do you mean by 99.99%? Are you counting total uptime, or just
unplanned outages? We don't have 99.99% uptime measured as a total, even
with a cluster and I'm not worried at all. That's not to say that our
servers (Dell 6650's) aren't reliable, they are; we've only had one
unplanned outage in the past year and a half and that was only for about 2
minutes as the cluster failed over... However, between hardware
maintenance/upgrades, and patches--both OS and SQL Server, we have managed
about 99.93% total uptime. But we have managed 100% uptime for business
hours over the past 11 months.
What we have found to be the biggest benefit of clustering is the ability to
do rolling upgrades, thereby reducing the total outage window for any
particular upgrade.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
99.99% without a cluster ?
Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8 h/day
shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers and
I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my environment.Clustering is for hardware failures. If your motherboard or processor dies
you are down until you can replace it. If you can do that within a time
that is acceptable to your business then great, otherwise something like
clustereing or log shipping will get you going a lot faster.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||It's "possible", but not "realistic" unless you're a zen master (:
You need to ask (at least) these questions:
(a) what is our REAL availability requirement
(b) what is our real cost of downtime
(c) what solutions are available to me (there is more than just clustering)
(d) what are the TOTAL costs associated with deploying each solutions?
(e) which solution (c) costs least (d) to limit downtime (b) whilst
achieving at least (a)
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||What do you mean by 99.99%? Are you counting total uptime, or just
unplanned outages? We don't have 99.99% uptime measured as a total, even
with a cluster and I'm not worried at all. That's not to say that our
servers (Dell 6650's) aren't reliable, they are; we've only had one
unplanned outage in the past year and a half and that was only for about 2
minutes as the cluster failed over... However, between hardware
maintenance/upgrades, and patches--both OS and SQL Server, we have managed
about 99.93% total uptime. But we have managed 100% uptime for business
hours over the past 11 months.
What we have found to be the biggest benefit of clustering is the ability to
do rolling upgrades, thereby reducing the total outage window for any
particular upgrade.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8 h/day
shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers and
I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my environment.Clustering is for hardware failures. If your motherboard or processor dies
you are down until you can replace it. If you can do that within a time
that is acceptable to your business then great, otherwise something like
clustereing or log shipping will get you going a lot faster.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||It's "possible", but not "realistic" unless you're a zen master (:
You need to ask (at least) these questions:
(a) what is our REAL availability requirement
(b) what is our real cost of downtime
(c) what solutions are available to me (there is more than just clustering)
(d) what are the TOTAL costs associated with deploying each solutions?
(e) which solution (c) costs least (d) to limit downtime (b) whilst
achieving at least (a)
Regards,
Greg Linwood
SQL Server MVP
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>|||What do you mean by 99.99%? Are you counting total uptime, or just
unplanned outages? We don't have 99.99% uptime measured as a total, even
with a cluster and I'm not worried at all. That's not to say that our
servers (Dell 6650's) aren't reliable, they are; we've only had one
unplanned outage in the past year and a half and that was only for about 2
minutes as the cluster failed over... However, between hardware
maintenance/upgrades, and patches--both OS and SQL Server, we have managed
about 99.93% total uptime. But we have managed 100% uptime for business
hours over the past 11 months.
What we have found to be the biggest benefit of clustering is the ability to
do rolling upgrades, thereby reducing the total outage window for any
particular upgrade.
"Marlon Brown" <marlon_brownj@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OF4IjVMLEHA.2576@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Is it realistic expect 99.99% reliability and system uptime without using
> any clustering solutions on a SQL 2000 db ?
> My server hardware is dual proc, raid1=OS, raid5=db, dual nic teamed and
> connected to individual switches for redudancy. My organization is 8
h/day
> shop and I have plenty of time for maintenance during weekends or nights.
> I am asking because some co-workers would like to cluster 4 SQL servers
and
> I have some questions if that is worthwhile and necessary in my
environment.
>
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
64-bit performance vs 32-bit performance
Hi
Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally I
need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
Regards.greedo wrote:
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...sp?orderby=dbms
There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly to
make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
numerous hardware configurations.
"Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> greedo wrote:
> See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...sp?orderby=dbms
> There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> sincerely,
> --
> Sebastian K. Zaklada
> Skilled Software
> http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>|||How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware (at
least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
bit machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly
to
> make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
> the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> numerous hardware configurations.
>
> "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
> in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> rights.
>|||Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways against
8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
(at
> least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
> bit machine.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
wildly
> to
shows
wrote
>|||I see now what your after. I don't have a specific link but this has a
lotof info:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/...sandreviews.asp
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> (at
32
> wildly
> shows
> wrote
>|||not sure if this helps you -
in evaluating 64bit for our purposes the one thing that stood out to us is
the olap piece. analysis services ability to address more than 3gig of ram
should seal the deal for you if you are working on a dw project that will
utilize large cubes. that process is memory intensive and loves to eat up
the ram.
as for the oltp piece - that seems to be a little tougher to quantify.
basically, any applications that are memory intensive should yield better
performance from the 64bit platform.
my rec, and i know time is important right now, is to contact both your
local microsoft office and speak to the sql server technology specialist and
ask them if they have any 64bit machines in their labs.
the local office should have a demo machine or access to a demo machine via
hp that you can use and test. personally, that would be the best way to test
your apps in deciding if 64bit is right for you. i have worked with several
customers and that was the route they went to help them make a decision.
hth -
Sal
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:O8e5WFIAEHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
> performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
> any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally
I
> need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
>
> Regards.
>
>|||I can't help with your specific question, but there's an interesting
database performance comparison of Intel Xeons vs. AMD Opterons at
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982 .
Mike Kruchten
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> (at
32
> wildly
> shows
> wrote
>
Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally I
need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
Regards.greedo wrote:
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...sp?orderby=dbms
There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly to
make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
numerous hardware configurations.
"Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> greedo wrote:
> See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpc...sp?orderby=dbms
> There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> sincerely,
> --
> Sebastian K. Zaklada
> Skilled Software
> http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>|||How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware (at
least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
bit machine.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly
to
> make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
> the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> numerous hardware configurations.
>
> "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
> in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> rights.
>|||Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways against
8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
(at
> least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
> bit machine.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
wildly
> to
shows
wrote
>|||I see now what your after. I don't have a specific link but this has a
lotof info:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/...sandreviews.asp
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> (at
32
> wildly
> shows
> wrote
>|||not sure if this helps you -
in evaluating 64bit for our purposes the one thing that stood out to us is
the olap piece. analysis services ability to address more than 3gig of ram
should seal the deal for you if you are working on a dw project that will
utilize large cubes. that process is memory intensive and loves to eat up
the ram.
as for the oltp piece - that seems to be a little tougher to quantify.
basically, any applications that are memory intensive should yield better
performance from the 64bit platform.
my rec, and i know time is important right now, is to contact both your
local microsoft office and speak to the sql server technology specialist and
ask them if they have any 64bit machines in their labs.
the local office should have a demo machine or access to a demo machine via
hp that you can use and test. personally, that would be the best way to test
your apps in deciding if 64bit is right for you. i have worked with several
customers and that was the route they went to help them make a decision.
hth -
Sal
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:O8e5WFIAEHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
> performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
> any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally
I
> need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
>
> Regards.
>
>|||I can't help with your specific question, but there's an interesting
database performance comparison of Intel Xeons vs. AMD Opterons at
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982 .
Mike Kruchten
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> (at
32
> wildly
> shows
> wrote
>
64-bit performance vs 32-bit performance
Hi
Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally I
need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
Regards.greedo wrote:
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly to
make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
numerous hardware configurations.
"Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> greedo wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> sincerely,
> --
> Sebastian K. Zaklada
> Skilled Software
> http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>|||How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware (at
least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
bit machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly
to
> make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
> the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> numerous hardware configurations.
>
> "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
> in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > greedo wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> >
> > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > --
> > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > Skilled Software
> > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> >
> >
>|||Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways against
8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
(at
> least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
> bit machine.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
wildly
> to
> > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
shows
> > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > numerous hardware configurations.
> >
> >
> > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
wrote
> > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > greedo wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > >
> > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > >
> > > sincerely,
> > > --
> > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > Skilled Software
> > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I see now what your after. I don't have a specific link but this has a
lotof info:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/newsandreviews.asp
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
> (at
> > least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a
32
> > bit machine.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> > news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
> wildly
> > to
> > > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
> shows
> > > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > > numerous hardware configurations.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > greedo wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > > >
> > > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > > >
> > > > sincerely,
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > > Skilled Software
> > > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||not sure if this helps you -
in evaluating 64bit for our purposes the one thing that stood out to us is
the olap piece. analysis services ability to address more than 3gig of ram
should seal the deal for you if you are working on a dw project that will
utilize large cubes. that process is memory intensive and loves to eat up
the ram.
as for the oltp piece - that seems to be a little tougher to quantify.
basically, any applications that are memory intensive should yield better
performance from the 64bit platform.
my rec, and i know time is important right now, is to contact both your
local microsoft office and speak to the sql server technology specialist and
ask them if they have any 64bit machines in their labs.
the local office should have a demo machine or access to a demo machine via
hp that you can use and test. personally, that would be the best way to test
your apps in deciding if 64bit is right for you. i have worked with several
customers and that was the route they went to help them make a decision.
hth -
Sal
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:O8e5WFIAEHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
> performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
> any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally
I
> need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
>
> Regards.
>
>|||I can't help with your specific question, but there's an interesting
database performance comparison of Intel Xeons vs. AMD Opterons at
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982 .
Mike Kruchten
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
> (at
> > least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a
32
> > bit machine.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> > news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
> wildly
> > to
> > > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
> shows
> > > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > > numerous hardware configurations.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > greedo wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > > >
> > > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > > >
> > > > sincerely,
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > > Skilled Software
> > > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally I
need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
Regards.greedo wrote:
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
sincerely,
--
Sebastian K. Zaklada
Skilled Software
http://www.skilledsoftware.com
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.|||Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly to
make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
numerous hardware configurations.
"Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> greedo wrote:
> > Hi
> >
> > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> sincerely,
> --
> Sebastian K. Zaklada
> Skilled Software
> http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.
>|||How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware (at
least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
bit machine.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary wildly
to
> make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it shows
> the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> numerous hardware configurations.
>
> "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com> wrote
> in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > greedo wrote:
> > > Hi
> > >
> > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> >
> > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > --
> > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > Skilled Software
> > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
> >
> >
>|||Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways against
8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
(at
> least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a 32
> bit machine.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
>
> "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
wildly
> to
> > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
shows
> > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > numerous hardware configurations.
> >
> >
> > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
wrote
> > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > greedo wrote:
> > > > Hi
> > > >
> > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > >
> > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > >
> > > sincerely,
> > > --
> > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > Skilled Software
> > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > rights.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||I see now what your after. I don't have a specific link but this has a
lotof info:
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/64bit/productinfo/newsandreviews.asp
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
> (at
> > least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a
32
> > bit machine.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> > news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
> wildly
> > to
> > > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
> shows
> > > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > > numerous hardware configurations.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > greedo wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > > >
> > > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > > >
> > > > sincerely,
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > > Skilled Software
> > > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>|||not sure if this helps you -
in evaluating 64bit for our purposes the one thing that stood out to us is
the olap piece. analysis services ability to address more than 3gig of ram
should seal the deal for you if you are working on a dw project that will
utilize large cubes. that process is memory intensive and loves to eat up
the ram.
as for the oltp piece - that seems to be a little tougher to quantify.
basically, any applications that are memory intensive should yield better
performance from the 64bit platform.
my rec, and i know time is important right now, is to contact both your
local microsoft office and speak to the sql server technology specialist and
ask them if they have any 64bit machines in their labs.
the local office should have a demo machine or access to a demo machine via
hp that you can use and test. personally, that would be the best way to test
your apps in deciding if 64bit is right for you. i have worked with several
customers and that was the route they went to help them make a decision.
hth -
Sal
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:O8e5WFIAEHA.2432@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Hi
> Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL Server
> performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform? Apologies for
> any cross posting that may have occurred only I need answer ASAP. Ideally
I
> need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
>
> Regards.
>
>|||I can't help with your specific question, but there's an interesting
database performance comparison of Intel Xeons vs. AMD Opterons at
http://www.anandtech.com/IT/showdoc.html?i=1982 .
Mike Kruchten
"greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
news:OcrA5PLAEHA.392@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Sorry I should have been more specific. The results at www.tpc.org do no
> have comparable results in that I am looking for a 4 x 64 bit CPU + 8 Gig
> Ram against 4x32 bit CPU + 8 Gig Ram. Typically I'm finding 16 ways
against
> 8 ways with differing Ram configurations which isn't really helpful!!
> Hopefully someone can steer me in the right direction.
>
> "Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnoooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
> news:%23G8ae$KAEHA.212@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > How can you compare them on a "similar hardware platform"? The hardware
> (at
> > least CPU etc) is completely different. You can't run 64 bit sql on a
32
> > bit machine.
> >
> > --
> > Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> >
> >
> > "greedo" <me@.there.com> wrote in message
> > news:eeb9kNIAEHA.1608@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > > Thanks for the quick response but unfortunately these systems vary
> wildly
> > to
> > > make true comparisons. What I'm looking for is case study where it
> shows
> > > the true differences between 64-bit and 32-bit SQL Server rather than
> > > numerous hardware configurations.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Sebastian K. Zaklada" <szaklada-dont-like-spam@.skilledsoftware.com>
> wrote
> > > in message news:uycl5KIAEHA.3400@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > > > greedo wrote:
> > > > > Hi
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anybody know of any official documents comparing 64-bit SQL
> > > > > Server performance against 32-bit on a similar hardware platform?
> > > > > Apologies for any cross posting that may have occurred only I need
> > > > > answer ASAP. Ideally I need OLAP & OLTP benchmarks.
> > > >
> > > > See TPC benchmarks for SQL Server at
> > > > http://www.tpc.org/tpcc/results/tpcc_results.asp?orderby=dbms
> > > > There are some 64-bit systems over there to compare against.
> > > >
> > > > sincerely,
> > > > --
> > > > Sebastian K. Zaklada
> > > > Skilled Software
> > > > http://www.skilledsoftware.com
> > > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> > > rights.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Saturday, February 11, 2012
4 questions
I would highly appreciate if any one give me the answer of the following
questions
Q1. Can anybody tell me an optimum hardware setup for performance as well as
another model which compensates performance over cost.
Q2. How would we tune Windows for SQL server?
Q3. Can any one tell solid points of importance of proper physical design of
a database especially in terms of Data storage structure, file placements
and estimating storage requirements.
Q4. What are the most important considerations to be taken for optimal
design of tables.
Thanks
NOOR
The four questions you are asking would require extensive research,
and they cannot possibly be satisfactorily resolved for you with a
single newsgroup posting. I would suggest starting your research by
reviewing the available information on Microsoft's web site at
www.microsoft.com/sql and asking more targeted questions about
specific issues you may uncover.
--Mary
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:39:15 -0700, "Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote:
>I would highly appreciate if any one give me the answer of the following
>questions
>Q1. Can anybody tell me an optimum hardware setup for performance as well as
>another model which compensates performance over cost.
>Q2. How would we tune Windows for SQL server?
>Q3. Can any one tell solid points of importance of proper physical design of
>a database especially in terms of Data storage structure, file placements
>and estimating storage requirements.
>Q4. What are the most important considerations to be taken for optimal
>design of tables.
>Thanks
>NOOR
>
questions
Q1. Can anybody tell me an optimum hardware setup for performance as well as
another model which compensates performance over cost.
Q2. How would we tune Windows for SQL server?
Q3. Can any one tell solid points of importance of proper physical design of
a database especially in terms of Data storage structure, file placements
and estimating storage requirements.
Q4. What are the most important considerations to be taken for optimal
design of tables.
Thanks
NOOR
The four questions you are asking would require extensive research,
and they cannot possibly be satisfactorily resolved for you with a
single newsgroup posting. I would suggest starting your research by
reviewing the available information on Microsoft's web site at
www.microsoft.com/sql and asking more targeted questions about
specific issues you may uncover.
--Mary
On Wed, 22 Sep 2004 00:39:15 -0700, "Noor" <noor@.ngsol.com> wrote:
>I would highly appreciate if any one give me the answer of the following
>questions
>Q1. Can anybody tell me an optimum hardware setup for performance as well as
>another model which compensates performance over cost.
>Q2. How would we tune Windows for SQL server?
>Q3. Can any one tell solid points of importance of proper physical design of
>a database especially in terms of Data storage structure, file placements
>and estimating storage requirements.
>Q4. What are the most important considerations to be taken for optimal
>design of tables.
>Thanks
>NOOR
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)