January 27, 2013 at 9:51 pm
Excellent points, Steve,
Each time I'm reminded of the decision to not build 64-bit Excel drivers I think, "Think of all the money they saved!" Meanwhile, I've seen data integration shops struggle with the overhead of learning to execute SSIS in 32-bit mode to accommodate that decision.
:{\
Andy Leonard, Chief Data Engineer, Enterprise Data & Analytics
January 28, 2013 at 6:15 am
We've had two plus decades of sales pressure and promotion from Redmond and others "encouraging" us to upgrade. After a while users realize that the newer versions of software aren't always necessary or anymore useful than the older ones and in some cases, (Vista, Windows 8, etc...), they can be confusing and costly to implement.
January 28, 2013 at 6:22 am
I've been running 64 bit on my home machine for over 5 years now. Some software is installed 64 bit, most as 32 bit. Minimal problems, most were VPN clients that didn't have 64-bit drivers (hello virtual machine).
I'd honestly recommend 64 bit OS without exception. SQL too, unless there's a really, really good reason not to.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
January 28, 2013 at 6:54 am
I was listening to a presentation recently and the presenter talked about some of the restrictions in working with 32 bit SQL Server on 64 bit Windows hosts. Another person joked that any companies still running 32 bit software were way behind the times. I heard a comment that surely everyone runs 64 bit hardware these days, don't they?
I can picture the scene perfectly in my mind's eye. Throwaway comments from techies being arrogant or smug, or simply making unsafe assumptions. None of those are attributes to fill me with confidence in those techies' abilities.
I agree that 64 bit is a good and perfectly safe choice, but there are always edge cases. Just because something's a good choice if you have a blank canvas isn't sufficient justification for all other setups to be updated. Technical excellence and fitness for business purpose are not always the same thing.
Semper in excretia, suus solum profundum variat
January 28, 2013 at 7:21 am
Good editorial Steve!
I vaguely remember a similar debate, many years ago, regarding 16 or 32 bit. I guess the more things change the more they stay the same. :laugh:
There may be a few places where 16 bit is still running fine but for the most part it has been replaced. If history is any indicator the same will be true for 32 bit. As new hardware and software comes out 64 bit will slowly become the standard and there will be fewer and fewer places where 32 bit continues to run fine.
It will be interesting to see what kind of breakthrough will be discovered to replace 64 bit...
Enjoy!
January 28, 2013 at 7:26 am
We have one legacy 32-Bit SQL box. The rest are all 64-Bit installs. It's our standard install simply because 64-bit architecture blows right past the 3 GB barrier and can theoretically address up to 18 Exabytes (18 billion GB) of system memory, not that you would ever have that much memory. Plus, 64-bit computers are much faster and more efficient than 32-bit computers because the processor can swallow and digest larger chunks of data with each and every bite. So, they are the hands down choice over 32-bit systems. Anyway, that architecture is extremely dated and is dying a very fast death.:-D
"Technology is a weird thing. It brings you great gifts with one hand, and it stabs you in the back with the other. ...:-D"
January 28, 2013 at 7:49 am
We run 64 bit for most new builds with one exception, some old finical reporting software that is tied to our ERP system requires 32 bit. This software is no longer being developed or upgraded by the vendor. We cannot switch to another tool without writing it ourselves and that will not happen because the ERP system will be upgraded to a different vendor soon. …by soon I mean they will start working on the upgrade soon. So, long story short, we still have at least 2 years on 32 bit for this dusty old software.
January 28, 2013 at 9:10 am
There are always people who will be penny wise and pound foolish. Servers need to be replaced, so why not take advantage of more powerful hardware? Not everybody wants to be bleeding edge, but certainly no need to wait more than 1-2 years. Also, people get paid with real money. So it's a waste of time and money to spend endless time working of performance issues that could be solved with hardware that costs less than the salary for all those involved. The business would be better served if said individuals were working on new systems.
The vendor app issue is the one thing that can be really hard to get around. I remember a few times over the years when the business was perfectly happy with the older version that hadn't been certified newer versions of just about everything.
January 28, 2013 at 9:36 am
I am surprised that no one mentioned the 2 GB (or 3 GB under Win7) memory limit. In my experience, need for more memory is a pretty good reason to go to 64 bits.
January 28, 2013 at 9:54 am
Don't forget that 64bit removes the limit on the size of the proc cache. Under 32bit SQL proc cache was limited to 2GB so it would never munch its way throught he buffer cache.
Some businesses migrate on a cost vs benefit principle. I have software that works better than it needs to running on platform 'x', why would I pay for an upgrade for no tangible benefit?
The fact that it runs on old hardware that might break or causes headaches for us in IT is seen as irrelevant.
January 28, 2013 at 10:54 am
lptech (1/28/2013)
There are always people who will be penny wise and pound foolish. Servers need to be replaced, so why not take advantage of more powerful hardware? Not everybody wants to be bleeding edge, but certainly no need to wait more than 1-2 years. Also, people get paid with real money. So it's a waste of time and money to spend endless time working of performance issues that could be solved with hardware that costs less than the salary for all those involved. The business would be better served if said individuals were working on new systems.The vendor app issue is the one thing that can be really hard to get around. I remember a few times over the years when the business was perfectly happy with the older version that hadn't been certified newer versions of just about everything.
Note that hardware doesn't necessarily remove the need for 32 bit software.
I agree that x86 hardware should go, if for no other reason than DR. You can't easily replace x86 hardware. But you might need 32 bit software, and you can run that in a VM if needed.
January 28, 2013 at 10:59 am
Very true. That's what we do. Not sure if we even have any 32 bit hardware other than several desktop machines. All 32 bit servers we manage are VM's.
January 28, 2013 at 11:10 am
chrisn-585491 (1/28/2013)
We've had two plus decades of sales pressure and promotion from Redmond and others "encouraging" us to upgrade. After a while users realize that the newer versions of software aren't always necessary or anymore useful than the older ones and in some cases, (Vista, Windows 8, etc...), they can be confusing and costly to implement.
Windows 8, do you mean Vista 2? That is what I call it. I laughed at all the media articles saying Windows 8 was outselling Windows 7, and I really started laughing when Microsoft finally admitted it was selling WORSE THAN Vista!
Windows 8 has ads embedded in the start page, why would I buy an OS that forces me to see their ads?
It mimics the XBox screen - really, are we a business or do we encourage our employees to play games all day?
PC sales are down right now, and I bet the ENTIRE reason is the incredibly poor decisions made by Microsoft to try to force everyone to use a tablet OS on a desktop. Businesses need productivity. Windows 8 WILL NOT make anyone more productive on a desktop, it will make them less productive. Before anyone thinks I am just against change, I embraced the ribbon bar in Office even though it took me a while to do so, and I still struggle to do some things. I recognize that there are advantages to the design in spite of my learning curve. I do not believe Windows 8 offers any value along those lines.
Dave
January 28, 2013 at 11:22 am
I work for a medium size health care organization that has to follow government mandates due to HIPAA, the president's health care plan, ICD10 and other changes. We also have to implement new software to continue to improve productivity for areas that need it, upgrade software for everything we already have, handle incoming calls on new issues that arise, and a bunch of other tasks. We do this in an environment that requires us to maintain old hardware and software due to limited resources - that is simply a fact in health care today due to the excessive government regulations. We still have SQL Server installs older than SQL 2000, we still have an NT domain, we still have servers running Windows NT. 95% of our desktop/laptop installs run Windows XP or older OS versions, thankfully I do not believe anything older than Windows 2000. We have PCs and servers that are more than 10 years old.
Yes, we have 64bit hardware, yes we are using VMWare, but that is for new installations and products that have seen a recent major upgrade. A lot of systems simply can't be upgraded for various reasons. I doubt we will fully migrate to 64bit until 256 bit hardware is prevalent, which most likely will come after 128bit. My guess, sometime around 2035. Um, wait, isn't that the year we are going to see the "Y2K for Unix" issue? Sigh.
Dave
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 21 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply