By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
440,077 Members | 1,175 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,077 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

memory 64bit windows , 32 bit Sql

P: n/a
I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os

my question and any information is very welcome

is there any things in need to know about awe with
memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
i want to increase the memory on the server but
i really don't know what im up against since this is
mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os

thanks
mike

Dec 8 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
4 Replies


P: n/a
mike wrote:
I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os

my question and any information is very welcome

is there any things in need to know about awe with
memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
i want to increase the memory on the server but
i really don't know what im up against since this is
mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os

thanks
mike
what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I said
excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture and 64bit
OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.

--
Michael Austin.
Database Consultant
Dec 10 '06 #2

P: n/a
I agree with you michael....the excuse (reason) i was given is that they did
not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta

so im trying to figure out why the system has come to a crawl...i know i
have to re-write alot of the stored procs
but the system waas moving along ok....and all of a sudden, come to a crawl
running same as before this super slow down
Nas Drives working ok, Network speaking ok
public net is 10/100, private network 10/100/1000
hard ware is 4 cpu...sql has 3, 4g mem (more mem required) 2.8 cpu's

so any information is welcome...
thanks
mike

"Michael Austin" <ma*****@firstdbasource.comwrote in message
news:0U*****************@newssvr21.news.prodigy.ne t...
mike wrote:
>I have found that orig tested 64 bit on our 64bit windows 2003
server...about 1 year ago...and company decided to use sql 32 bit on the
64bit os

my question and any information is very welcome

is there any things in need to know about awe with
memory above 4g ...whilst using 32 bit sql on a 64bit os
i want to increase the memory on the server but
i really don't know what im up against since this is
mixed system 32 bit sql and 64 bit os

thanks
mike

what was the excuse used to persuade them to use 32bit vs 64bit? (note I
said excuse not reason) If you are going to invest in a 64bit architecture
and 64bit OS - it is beyond insanity to install a 32bit database.

--
Michael Austin.
Database Consultant

Dec 11 '06 #3

P: n/a
mike (ve***********@yahoo.com) writes:
I agree with you michael....the excuse (reason) i was given is that they
did not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta
Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.

It's a different thing, if the machine is an x64 box. Particularly, if
you are running SQL 2000, since there is no x64 version of SQL 2000.
If you are running SQL 2005, the 64-bit version is still to prefer, I
guess, but there is no direct penalty for running the 32-bit version
on x64.
but the system waas moving along ok....and all of a sudden, come to a >
crawl running same as before this super slow down
The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.

I would run profiler and capture events that run more than, say, 100 ms.
The events to include are RPC:Completed, SQL:BatchCompleted, SP:Completed,
SP:StmtCompleted and SP:Recompile.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx
Dec 11 '06 #4

P: n/a
thanks for the information

Mike

"Erland Sommarskog" <es****@sommarskog.sewrote in message
news:Xn**********************@127.0.0.1...
mike (ve***********@yahoo.com) writes:
>I agree with you michael....the excuse (reason) i was given is that they
did not trust sql64 at the time...just out of beta

Now, wait! The only sql64 that in beta alone was Liberty, the 64-bit
version of SQL 2000. If that version was an option for them, it means
that your 64-bit box is an Itanium machine. As far as I know there is
quite a performance penalty running 32-bit programs on Itanium.

It's a different thing, if the machine is an x64 box. Particularly, if
you are running SQL 2000, since there is no x64 version of SQL 2000.
If you are running SQL 2005, the 64-bit version is still to prefer, I
guess, but there is no direct penalty for running the 32-bit version
on x64.
>but the system waas moving along ok....and all of a sudden, come to a >
crawl running same as before this super slow down

The cause could very well be that the query plans for some common queries
have gone awry.

I would run profiler and capture events that run more than, say, 100 ms.
The events to include are RPC:Completed, SQL:BatchCompleted, SP:Completed,
SP:StmtCompleted and SP:Recompile.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, es****@sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx

Dec 11 '06 #5

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.