32 enterprise or 64

[Franky]

Hi. One question:

which operating system is better (perfomance) to run a 32-bit
application like sql server 2005 standard 32 bits? :

1-Windows Server 2003 enterprise 32 bits in a machine with 8 GB
memory?

or

2-Windows Server 2003 standard x64 and in a machine with the same 8 GB
memory?

I mean, can we obtain less perfomance to run a 32-bit App onto a 64-
bit platform (I suppose WOW limit the perfomance) or it is better to
use directly a 64-bit platform. Which option do a better memory
management, x64 o 32-windows-enterprise? The second will have to use
PAE, the first don't.

Note: Imagine no matter the number of processors. I want to consider
memory issues

The same question could be interesting about Windows Server 2008.

Thanks.

 

[Dusko Savatovic]

x64, with hands down.

Anything above 4GB in a 32-bit environment is pure hack invented to bridge
the gap when we were waiting for 64-bit technology.

OTOH, I would not go for 2003 technology. Specially for the 64-bit platform.

Win 2003 was the best 32-bit server OS of it's time.
The time now is 2009, last quarter.


"Franky" wrote in message
news:60e836f8-2991-49c2-9e61-4f224a8320e3@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Hi. One question:
>
> which operating system is better (perfomance) to run a 32-bit
> application like sql server 2005 standard 32 bits? :
>
> 1-Windows Server 2003 enterprise 32 bits in a machine with 8 GB
> memory?
>
> or
>
> 2-Windows Server 2003 standard x64 and in a machine with the same 8 GB
> memory?
>
> I mean, can we obtain less perfomance to run a 32-bit App onto a 64-
> bit platform (I suppose WOW limit the perfomance) or it is better to
> use directly a 64-bit platform. Which option do a better memory
> management, x64 o 32-windows-enterprise? The second will have to use
> PAE, the first don't.
>
> Note: Imagine no matter the number of processors. I want to consider
> memory issues
>
> The same question could be interesting about Windows Server 2008.
>
> Thanks.
>
>

 

[Franky]

On 30 sep, 21:36, "Dusko Savatovic"
wrote:
> x64, with hands down.
>
> Anything above 4GB in a 32-bit environment is pure hack invented to bridge
> the gap when we were waiting for 64-bit technology.
>
> OTOH, I would not go for 2003 technology. Specially for the 64-bit platform.
>
> Win 2003 was the best 32-bit server OS of it's time.
> The time now is  2009, last quarter.
>
> "Franky" wrote in message
>
> news:60e836f8-2991-49c2-9e61-4f224a8320e3@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hi. One question:
>
> > which operating system is better (perfomance) to run a 32-bit
> > application like sql server 2005 standard 32 bits? :
>
> > 1-Windows Server 2003 enterprise 32 bits in a machine with 8 GB
> > memory?
>
> > or
>
> > 2-Windows Server 2003 standard x64 and in a machine with the same 8 GB
> > memory?
>
> > I mean, can we obtain less perfomance to run a 32-bit App onto a 64-
> > bit platform (I suppose WOW limit the perfomance) or it is better to
> > use directly a 64-bit platform. Which option do a better memory
> > management, x64 o 32-windows-enterprise? The second will have to use
> > PAE, the first don't.
>
> > Note: Imagine no matter the number of processors. I want to consider
> > memory issues
>
> > The same question could be interesting about Windows Server 2008.
>
> > Thanks.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -

Thanks Dusko for your answer. I think so as well, x64 better. But as
the server is only going to run a 32 bit-application i am not sure if
a 32bit-app toguether with a 32bit-SO will work better than 32bit-app
and 64bit-SO. I think i will install Windows Server 2008 Standard x64.
I hope the tandem w2008x64-sql2005standard32 works well.