December 21, 2010 at 3:32 pm
...
It is wider than that. As I mentioned above, if you are a pro,for 64 bits you better develop under 64 bits. That means upgrades to dev workstations and THEIR software, and suddenly you are facing six digits and the first one is not necessarily '1'.
...
this will happen naturally as developers workstations get replaced and upgraded based just on age alone. lets say MS releases a 64-bit only platform of SQL in 2013. when that happens, you are saying, NO developer will have a Workstation capable of 64-bit? so every dev is working on a workstation that is 8+ years old? and that everyone will need an upgrade, all at the same time.... i find that hard to believe.
Anyway.. everyone still has plenty of time. no need to sweat.
December 21, 2010 at 11:19 pm
Revenant (12/21/2010)
It is wider than that. As I mentioned above, if you are a pro,for 64 bits you better develop under 64 bits. That means upgrades to dev workstations and THEIR software, and suddenly you are facing six digits and the first one is not necessarily '1'.
I'm not sure I see why developers need 64-bit workstations just because the SQL Server happens to be running on a 64-bit platform.
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
December 22, 2010 at 12:54 am
I agree with SQLKiwi. One of the important things about the 64-bit version of SQL server is that it's entirely compatible with the 32-bit version, even down to the data files it uses--we have an ancient VB6 application running against a 64-bit SQL 2005 database back end without the slightest problem. Therefore there's no necessity for developers to be using 64-bit just because the server is.
December 22, 2010 at 9:53 am
SQLkiwi (12/21/2010)
I'm not sure I see why developers need 64-bit workstations just because the SQL Server happens to be running on a 64-bit platform.
We develop for 16-to-32 GB 64 bit Enterprise on 8 GB workstations that are running 64 bit Developer. If you are developing under 32 bits for a 64 bits environment, you deal with an engine that has a different paging engine and paging-related performance issues, so tuning of queries under 32 bits may not give optimum results for 64 bits. Also, there are significant differences between 32 and 64 bit SSIS.
In general, Microsoft does not recommend developing in 32 bits BIDS for a 64 bit environments.
December 22, 2010 at 10:44 am
Revenant (12/22/2010)
We develop for 16-to-32 GB 64 bit Enterprise on 8 GB workstations that are running 64 bit Developer. If you are developing under 32 bits for a 64 bits environment, you deal with an engine that has a different paging engine and paging-related performance issues, so tuning of queries under 32 bits may not give optimum results for 64 bits. Also, there are significant differences between 32 and 64 bit SSIS. In general, Microsoft does not recommend developing in 32 bits BIDS for a 64 bit environments.
Fair point on the SSIS stuff, though Terminal Services/Citrix are options there.
Most environments I have worked in have separate Dev/Test servers, rather than Dev edition running locally though!
Nevertheless, general SQL Server development is quite possible from a 32-bit client running against a 64-bit server.
The more general point is that SQL Server is much happier on 64-bit, and 32-bit is fast becoming unworkable for all but the smallest needs.
Paul White
SQLPerformance.com
SQLkiwi blog
@SQL_Kiwi
December 22, 2010 at 12:11 pm
SQLkiwi (12/22/2010)
Most environments I have worked in have separate Dev/Test servers, rather than Dev edition running locally though!. . .
The more general point is that SQL Server is much happier on 64-bit, and 32-bit is fast becoming unworkable for all but the smallest needs.
We have only a few cubes but they are very large and very complex and they are worked on by several developers. Each of them has his own copy and TFS merges the unit tested changes. It is safer than two or three devs working on the same cube at the same time.
And yes indeed, 64 bits is "the real thing."
December 22, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Interesting comments. I have heard from plenty of people still running x86, though for new machines, it seems that most people are running x64. Just don't forget that lots of companies still have 3-4 year old hardware they are running. My wife is still XP, x86, as is most of her 5000+ person company. And they're a high tech company.
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
December 23, 2010 at 6:00 am
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (12/22/2010)Just don't forget that lots of companies still have 3-4 year old hardware they are running.
I would have thought that even 3-4 year old hardware would likely support x64--the entire Intel Core 2 line had that support, and that was introduced in the middle of 2006! Software upgrade costs would be an issue even if the hardware support was there, of course.
December 27, 2010 at 9:30 am
SQL Server is already seen as being limited, in comparison to Oracle, because it only runs on the MS Windows operating system. I think that removing 32bit support from the next version of SQL Server would be a huge technical and marketing mistake, and even long time users would be slower to upgrade than they normally are.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 27, 2010 at 9:52 am
I guess i have a question...
Would a company really upgrade their production SQL server to the upcomming version and then say...
hey! lets just upgrade SQL server but keep it running on our 6+ year old server?? (of course by the time the new SQL is available it would be a 7 or 8 year old server)
Everyone says its a bad idea for MS to stop support for 32-bit system. but, i would bet that many of those that are saying that, are indeed running 64-bit servers already or have the capabilities to run 64-bit.
It's the same old thing. when something is taken away. people get upset. even if they dont need or want what is being taken away.
December 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
leroy-1092048 (12/27/2010)
. . . It's the same old thing. when something is taken away. people get upset. even if they dont need or want what is being taken away.
When you want to go from 32 bits to 64, you have way less resistance then when you went from 16 to 32: back then you needed custom thunking layers to run 16 bits apps under 32 bit Windows.
IMO the biggest obstacle, if you are migrating from 32 to 64 bits, are drivers for the old devices that often are not available in 64 bit version. You cannot migrate to 64 bits Windows and SQL Server if you don't have a 64 bit driver for your 5+ years old RAID.
December 27, 2010 at 10:23 am
leroy-1092048 (12/27/2010)
I guess i have a question...Would a company really upgrade their production SQL server to the upcomming version and then say...
hey! lets just upgrade SQL server but keep it running on our 6+ year old server?? (of course by the time the new SQL is available it would be a 7 or 8 year old server)
Everyone says its a bad idea for MS to stop support for 32-bit system. but, i would bet that many of those that are saying that, are indeed running 64-bit servers already or have the capabilities to run 64-bit.
It's the same old thing. when something is taken away. people get upset. even if they dont need or want what is being taken away.
That would be a good point, if we're just talking about the one production server or cluster. However, a corporate IT department has development, QA, and local workstation environments, not all of them have 64bit hardware and/or Windows capability, and that's a lot of investment and deployments just to accomodate SQL Server. Oracle 11g can run on anything from a 64bit Sun SPARC server to an old laptop running Windows 2000. I'd hate for Oracle to claim broader support for the MS Windows platform than MS SQL Server.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 27, 2010 at 10:39 am
Eric Russell 13013 (12/27/2010)
leroy-1092048 (12/27/2010)
I guess i have a question...Would a company really upgrade their production SQL server to the upcomming version and then say...
hey! lets just upgrade SQL server but keep it running on our 6+ year old server?? (of course by the time the new SQL is available it would be a 7 or 8 year old server)
Everyone says its a bad idea for MS to stop support for 32-bit system. but, i would bet that many of those that are saying that, are indeed running 64-bit servers already or have the capabilities to run 64-bit.
It's the same old thing. when something is taken away. people get upset. even if they dont need or want what is being taken away.
That would be a good point, if we're just talking about the one production server or cluster. However, a corporate IT department has development, QA, and local workstation environments, not all of them have 64bit hardware and/or Windows capability, and that's a lot of investment and deployments just to accomodate SQL Server. Oracle 11g can run on anything from a 64bit Sun SPARC server to an old laptop running Windows 2000. I'd hate for Oracle to claim broader support for the MS Windows platform than MS SQL Server.
That is a myth Oracle sells but I have not run x86 Oracle in any company for more than eight years, selling only x64 for production and development while telling everybody we support both x86 and x64. SQL Server has also supported both for seven years.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
December 27, 2010 at 11:24 am
Gift Peddie (12/27/2010)
...That is a myth Oracle sells but I have not run x86 Oracle in any company for more than eight years, selling only x64 for production and development while telling everybody we support both x86 and x64. SQL Server has also supported both for seven years...
You're still thinking in terms of a production server, which I agree should be 64bit nowadays, and from the perspective of a DBA. However, if a near future release of SQL Server only runs on a 64bit Windows platform, then it prevents an IT department from staging the database environment on lower end development boxes or personal workstations. When a company upgrades their servers to 64bit, the old box most often doesn't get tossed in the trash but rather re-provisioned for another department or development group. In the company I work for, we have both SQL Server and Oracle running on 64bit production servers, but practically all workstations, including IT development, have XP 32bit installed. I personally have both SQL Server 2008 Dev Edition and Oracle 10g Express Edition running on my XP 32bit laptop.
It seems to me that, if designed properly, the code base for the 32bit and 64bit versions of SQL Server shouldn't be significantly different; it's just a different compile of the binary files. If Oracle can pull it off, then so should Microsoft; I don't think we should forfeit the 32bit Windows community to Oracle.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
December 27, 2010 at 12:08 pm
MSDN downloads and DVD/CD are AnyCPU binaries so Microsoft can provide x64 and AnyCPU builds that will install in x86 operating systems for developers and testing. In RDBMS everybody lies and I mean everybody lies about what is actually available
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie
Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 38 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply