Editions questions | SQL Server Performance Forums

SQL Server Performance Forum – Threads Archive

Editions questions

I’m looking at a new small-ish server such as: HP Proliant ML370 G5 SAS 2 x 2.33 GHz Quad Core Intel E5345
2 x 2.66 GHz Quad-Core Intel X5355 Extra drive cage option 10 72GB 15,000 RPM SAS hard drives, configured as two raids for log and data, plus OS/Application disks 8 GB RAM The application I need to run demands SQL Server 2000, and I have only standard edition, and it eats the buffer cache for lunch. So I am wondering if there’s any merit to considering the 64 bit versions of either the OS or SQL Server 2000, or both. Or if I ought to just sit tight with 32-bit versions of both. E.G. Is there any performance/memory use advantage to SQL Server 2000 Std (32) running on Windows Server 2003(64)? Or is it even possible to run SQL Server 2000 (64-bit) on non-"Itanium" hardware?
Check: http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=15002 Luis Martin
SQL-Server-Performance.com All in Love is Fair
Stevie Wonder
All postings are provided “AS IS” with no warranties for accuracy.
Started there <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ /> But thanks for the tip.<br /><br />One other question I just bumped into: SQL Server 2000 Std Ed limits number of processors to 4. Does that mean there’s no point in buying a machine with 2 x 4 core processors ( 8 cores ) to run standard edition? Is it simply going to refuse to use the extra cores?
Yes it will refuse to use more then 4 processor. Refer below document also http://searchsqlserver.techtarget.com/tip/0,289483,sid87_gci1233009,00.html Hemantgiri S. Goswami
"Humans don’t have Caliber to PASS TIME , Time it self Pass or Fail Humans" – by Hemantgiri S. Goswami http://hemantgirisgoswami.blogspot.com
how does your app demand SQL 2000?
is it version check?
are there xprocs that do not load in 2005?
or is it just the vendor does refuses to provide support on 2005?
Hi Joe – it’s more the compilation problem outlined in my other post "learn from my failed upgrade"<a target="_blank" href=http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19622.>http://www.sql-server-performance.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=19622.</a> This is another database serving that same application, and my manager will hear nothing of 2005 after that experience <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-5.gif’ alt=’;-)’ />
ok, i bounced an idea with some developers i know that could address this problem for now, with just S2K Std Ed, you are stuck on 2GB,
so you must have disk power to handle the load there is an adv to running 32-bit SQL 2K Ent Ed on W2K3 64-bit, because SQL can use the entire 4GB address space, not just 3GB,
but Std Ed is SOL how about buying a 1 socket license for S2K Ent Ed
a single quad core has more than enough horsepower,
compared with previous procs,
then you can use all the mem in the ProLiant ML370, up to 64G if you want
Thanks Joe – perfect information <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-1.gif’ alt=’:)‘ /><br /><br />I am now contemplating using Windows 2003 Server (64) with an existing license for SQL Server 2000 Std (32), thinking that would allow us to upgrade the SQL Server side in the future as the DB grows, or on the off chance the vendor gets their act together WRT SQL 2005 within 3 years. The OS would already be 64-bit at that point.<br /><br />I could get a two socket machine and put 1 four-core processor in it, then should the opportunity arise in future add a second processor together with a SQL upgrade.
of course, you could always order both procs now, just using one for SQL,
its easier than filling out another PO, opening the box, etc or you could order it and I will hold the proc for you (heh)
Too bad our workstations are Dell and our servers are HP, otherwise I might stuff it in my own machine <img src=’/community/emoticons/emotion-5.gif’ alt=’;-)’ />