Itanium vs Itanium 2

The 64 bit SQL Server version product blurb on the net specificaly reference
s the Itanium 2 processor. Are there any limitations to the original Itanium
? Obviously the Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by.
ThanksI agree with Joe. Don't buy a McKinley, make sure you get a Madison as they
are about twice as fast.
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"joe chang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2efa01c3e219$0ac15cd0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...[QUOTE]
> i would not waste time on the original itanium system no
> matter how cheap they are on ebay, unless you want a space
> heater
> i would not expect any better performance than a Pentium
> III Xeon 700MHz
>
> specificaly references the Itanium 2 processor. Are there
> any limitations to the original Itanium? Obviously the
> Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by.|||I had a discussion on that when I was @.IT FORUM.
Ofcourse 64 bit will perform better I fully agree, but most of the time
people just forget to optimize their databases, actually no one looks at how
their queries perform, how they can be optimized, especially when using some
customized ERP or CRM applications that used to have their own storage
engine and now support sql server as the backend storage
Regards,
Dandy Weyn
MCSE, MCSA, MCDBA, MCT
www.dandyman.net
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23zm%23QJj4DHA.2656@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...

quote:

---

> I agree with Joe. Don't buy a McKinley, make sure you get a Madison as

---

they

quote:

---

> are about twice as fast.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "joe chang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2efa01c3e219$0ac15cd0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
>

---

Itanium vs Itanium 2

The 64 bit SQL Server version product blurb on the net specificaly references the Itanium 2 processor. Are there any limitations to the original Itanium? Obviously the Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by
Thanksi would not waste time on the original itanium system no
matter how cheap they are on ebay, unless you want a space
heater
i would not expect any better performance than a Pentium
III Xeon 700MHz
>--Original Message--
>The 64 bit SQL Server version product blurb on the net
specificaly references the Itanium 2 processor. Are there
any limitations to the original Itanium? Obviously the
Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by.
>Thanks
>.
>|||I agree with Joe. Don't buy a McKinley, make sure you get a Madison as they
are about twice as fast.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"joe chang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2efa01c3e219$0ac15cd0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> i would not waste time on the original itanium system no
> matter how cheap they are on ebay, unless you want a space
> heater
> i would not expect any better performance than a Pentium
> III Xeon 700MHz
> >--Original Message--
> >The 64 bit SQL Server version product blurb on the net
> specificaly references the Itanium 2 processor. Are there
> any limitations to the original Itanium? Obviously the
> Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by.
> >
> >Thanks
> >.
> >|||I had a discussion on that when I was @.IT FORUM.
Ofcourse 64 bit will perform better I fully agree, but most of the time
people just forget to optimize their databases, actually no one looks at how
their queries perform, how they can be optimized, especially when using some
customized ERP or CRM applications that used to have their own storage
engine and now support sql server as the backend storage
Regards,
Dandy Weyn
MCSE, MCSA, MCDBA, MCT
www.dandyman.net
"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@.shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:%23zm%23QJj4DHA.2656@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> I agree with Joe. Don't buy a McKinley, make sure you get a Madison as
they
> are about twice as fast.
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly
> SQL Server MVP
>
> "joe chang" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:2efa01c3e219$0ac15cd0$a301280a@.phx.gbl...
> > i would not waste time on the original itanium system no
> > matter how cheap they are on ebay, unless you want a space
> > heater
> > i would not expect any better performance than a Pentium
> > III Xeon 700MHz
> >
> > >--Original Message--
> > >The 64 bit SQL Server version product blurb on the net
> > specificaly references the Itanium 2 processor. Are there
> > any limitations to the original Itanium? Obviously the
> > Itanium servers are much cheaper to come by.
> > >
> > >Thanks
> > >.
> > >
>sql

Itanium or x64

We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
bit version and then apply service pack 4?
Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
DanHi
Microsoft is still finalizing this.
Once they have made a decision, there will be a public statement on this.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"DanR" <DanR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7122D72-6462-4152-A650-A3AE5019FEF0@.microsoft.com...
> We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
> version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
> bit version and then apply service pack 4?
> Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
> Dan
>|||The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase today.
We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across any
statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions we
have are:
How much memory will be available to us?
Do we still need boot.ini switches?
Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
Has anybody tried this environment?
Dan|||I have an IBM blade with the EM64t chip. I am not seeing the performance I
feel I should. It may be that Beta 2 is unoptimized. But in running
comparisons between a 32 bit box and the new install I am getting better
performance from the 32 bit. The cpu time is greater by a value of about 4
times. Those beings send I am continuing to investigate this issue. It is
our first venture into the 64 bit world, but we are committed to getting
there.
I will post what we further find out.
"DanR" wrote:
> The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
> I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
> until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase today.
> We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across any
> statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
> Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions we
> have are:
> How much memory will be available to us?
> Do we still need boot.ini switches?
> Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
> Has anybody tried this environment?
> Dan

Itanium or x64

We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
bit version and then apply service pack 4?
Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
Dan
Hi
Microsoft is still finalizing this.
Once they have made a decision, there will be a public statement on this.
Regards
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"DanR" <DanR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7122D72-6462-4152-A650-A3AE5019FEF0@.microsoft.com...
> We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
> version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
> bit version and then apply service pack 4?
> Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
> Dan
>
|||The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase today.
We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across any
statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions we
have are:
How much memory will be available to us?
Do we still need boot.ini switches?
Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
Has anybody tried this environment?
Dan
|||I have an IBM blade with the EM64t chip. I am not seeing the performance I
feel I should. It may be that Beta 2 is unoptimized. But in running
comparisons between a 32 bit box and the new install I am getting better
performance from the 32 bit. The cpu time is greater by a value of about 4
times. Those beings send I am continuing to investigate this issue. It is
our first venture into the 64 bit world, but we are committed to getting
there.
I will post what we further find out.
"DanR" wrote:

> The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
> I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
> until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase today.
> We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across any
> statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
> Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions we
> have are:
> How much memory will be available to us?
> Do we still need boot.ini switches?
> Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
> Has anybody tried this environment?
> Dan

Itanium or x64

We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
bit version and then apply service pack 4?
Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
DanHi
Microsoft is still finalizing this.
Once they have made a decision, there will be a public statement on this.
Regards
--
Mike Epprecht, Microsoft SQL Server MVP
Zurich, Switzerland
IM: mike@.epprecht.net
MVP Program: http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/epprecht/
"DanR" <DanR@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:B7122D72-6462-4152-A650-A3AE5019FEF0@.microsoft.com...
> We're looking for information on x64 support of SQL 2000. Will the 64 bit
> version of SQL 2000 install on an x64 machine? Do I need to install the 32
> bit version and then apply service pack 4?
> Any information on how sp4 adds support for x64 would be appreciated.
> Dan
>|||The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase today
.
We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across any
statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions we
have are:
How much memory will be available to us?
Do we still need boot.ini switches?
Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
Has anybody tried this environment?
Dan|||I have an IBM blade with the EM64t chip. I am not seeing the performance I
feel I should. It may be that Beta 2 is unoptimized. But in running
comparisons between a 32 bit box and the new install I am getting better
performance from the 32 bit. The cpu time is greater by a value of about 4
times. Those beings send I am continuing to investigate this issue. It is
our first venture into the 64 bit world, but we are committed to getting
there.
I will post what we further find out.
"DanR" wrote:

> The timing of all these changes couldn't be worse.
> I have budget for a server upgrade but won't have the budget for SQL 2005
> until next year and we're trying to figure out what server to purchase tod
ay.
> We would like to go with x64 if possible, however I haven't come across an
y
> statements from software or hardware manufacturers regarding SQL 2000
> Enterprise running on Windows 2003 Enterprise x64. Some of the questions w
e
> have are:
> How much memory will be available to us?
> Do we still need boot.ini switches?
> Should we install 32 bit SQL until we can upgrade to SQL 2005?
> Has anybody tried this environment?
> Dansql