jwcolby
jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com
Fri Jul 13 16:51:47 CDT 2007
Robert, So it is really tough to say how much comes from 64 bit software and how much from new hardware. Moving from a PIII 1 GHz 4 gig ram to a modern dual core, probably close to 4 or 5 GHz equivalent, plus 8 gig memory, it might ALL be from the better hardware. I am going to have to try myself though. I am waiting (impatiently) for AMD to release their "true quad core" processor to try to get a feel for how it competes with the currently available quad core from Intel. Once I can get that sense I will be making a purchase decision on a new server to run x64 bit OS and SQL Server. I am running queries on 50 million record tables with anywhere from 2 to 20 or more fields in where clauses, joined to similar sized tables doing wheres on (typically) a zip field. The result sets are then often counted, and sometimes address data is pulled into result sets for export. My query run times are just horrendous. I can't help but feel that if I could run x64 and 32 GByte of ram vs. x32 and 4 GB ram (current config) that the difference would be worth the expense. I simply cannot do that though without the x64 OS / SQL Server. To some extent I am going to be in the same boat re hardware vs. software speed increase though. I can possibly run Windows Server x64 on my current hardware, but that hardware is a dual core AMD limited to 8 gb of RAM. So while even that (moving to 8 gb) would no doubt make a difference it would probably not be enough difference to be worth doing all by itself, especially given the cost of the software. OTOH if I could go to a dual processor quad core with 32 GB (or even 64 gb), THAT should open things up for me. And interestingly, the cost of the hardware to do that is reasonable, at least "build it yourself". I can build a system for about $4500 for a dual processor quad core Intel with 32 gb of RAM (no disks / raid controller - which I already have) and around $7000 with 64 gb of ram. Of course that is WITHOUT the X64 OS and SQL Server. Do you know how much you paid for the X64 software? John W. Colby Colby Consulting www.ColbyConsulting.com -----Original Message----- From: dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com [mailto:dba-sqlserver-bounces at databaseadvisors.com] On Behalf Of Robert Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:18 PM To: dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Windows 2003 x64; SQL Server 2005 X64 John, See answers below... Old server was Dual PIII 1 ghz, 4 GIG ram At 12:00 PM 7/13/2007, you wrote: >Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 14:36:22 -0400 >From: "jwcolby" <jwcolby at colbyconsulting.com> >Subject: Re: [dba-SQLServer] Windows 2003 x64; SQL Server 2005 X64 >To: <dba-sqlserver at databaseadvisors.com> >Message-ID: <20070712183623.419D1BFB2 at smtp-auth.no-ip.com> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >Robert, > >Have you done any timing testing for large data sets? Our largest query is against a current and archive table of Logins. It has over 32 million records in a union query. on the new server, it took about 1/10 the time. >Any "gut feelings" for speed differences? The first comment was that the Access app that was running against it was so fast the users might complain. (smile) I would say overall, about 4 times faster. > >Did you have to purchase a different version of SQL Server or does the >64 bit come with the 32 bit and "just start working"? You have to have both x64 Windows and x64 SQL. They are separate, not just the x32. Although, you can install x32 SQL on a x64 OS. > >Or did you get brand new machines with preinstalled software? We got the software ourselves because we could get it cheaper. >John W. Colby _______________________________________________ dba-SQLServer mailing list dba-SQLServer at databaseadvisors.com http://databaseadvisors.com/mailman/listinfo/dba-sqlserver http://www.databaseadvisors.com