We will be moving our Main Sql database on to a new system in the autumn (the
fall). A fairly big bang for us as we intend to move from 32 bit SQL 2000 sp4
to 64 bit SQL 2005 with 32GB or 64GB ram depending on final budget. We are
fairly happy with our testing on 2005. The only things we think we need to
sort is: no DTS on 64 bit and a haggle with Quest over Litespeed.

Does anyone have any thoughts over which is the best (stabilty, performance)
OS out of 64 bit Windows 2003 or 2008 for Sql. I have read there seems to be
an improvement of memory management on 2008 but is it a bit bleeding edge?

Hi

Personally I would go with 2003, simple because it out in the market for
many years, and has 2 Service packs and most issues should have identified
and resolved.

vinu

"Random" <Random@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33C3B1B3-CB53-484B-8879-47F4BE0AE262@microsoft.com...
> We will be moving our Main Sql database on to a new system in the autumn
> (the
> fall). A fairly big bang for us as we intend to move from 32 bit SQL 2000
> sp4
> to 64 bit SQL 2005 with 32GB or 64GB ram depending on final budget. We are
> fairly happy with our testing on 2005. The only things we think we need to
> sort is: no DTS on 64 bit and a haggle with Quest over Litespeed.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts over which is the best (stabilty,
> performance)
> OS out of 64 bit Windows 2003 or 2008 for Sql. I have read there seems to
> be
> an improvement of memory management on 2008 but is it a bit bleeding edge?
>
>
>

If you have the choice and need the best architecture, Personally, I
will recommend ITANIUM Architecure.
For SQl Server here is the link: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/edition.../overview.mspx

SQL server 64 on windows 2003 64

Are you talking Itanium 64 bit or X64 bit? If it is only 64GB what would be
the reason for Itanium? I would run Win 2008 as there have been huge
improvements in performance in many areas and some new features you may want
to use at some point. And why not look at using SQL2008 if this is going to
be in the fall?

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"Random" <Random@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:33C3B1B3-CB53-484B-8879-47F4BE0AE262@microsoft.com...
> We will be moving our Main Sql database on to a new system in the autumn
> (the
> fall). A fairly big bang for us as we intend to move from 32 bit SQL 2000
> sp4
> to 64 bit SQL 2005 with 32GB or 64GB ram depending on final budget. We are
> fairly happy with our testing on 2005. The only things we think we need to
> sort is: no DTS on 64 bit and a haggle with Quest over Litespeed.
>
> Does anyone have any thoughts over which is the best (stabilty,
> performance)
> OS out of 64 bit Windows 2003 or 2008 for Sql. I have read there seems to
> be
> an improvement of memory management on 2008 but is it a bit bleeding edge?
>
>
>

Andrew,

Win2008 might have lost improvements in performance. But when deciding on a
production server OS, i believe the stability of the os is very importent.

vinu


"Andrew J. Kelly" <sqlmvpnooospam@shadhawk.com> wrote in message
news:eCYcz8U0IHA.4400@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Are you talking Itanium 64 bit or X64 bit? If it is only 64GB what would
> be the reason for Itanium? I would run Win 2008 as there have been huge
> improvements in performance in many areas and some new features you may
> want to use at some point. And why not look at using SQL2008 if this is
> going to be in the fall?
>
> --
> Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
> Solid Quality Mentors
>
>
> "Random" <Random@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:33C3B1B3-CB53-484B-8879-47F4BE0AE262@microsoft.com...
>> We will be moving our Main Sql database on to a new system in the autumn
>> (the
>> fall). A fairly big bang for us as we intend to move from 32 bit SQL 2000
>> sp4
>> to 64 bit SQL 2005 with 32GB or 64GB ram depending on final budget. We
>> are
>> fairly happy with our testing on 2005. The only things we think we need
>> to
>> sort is: no DTS on 64 bit and a haggle with Quest over Litespeed.
>>
>> Does anyone have any thoughts over which is the best (stabilty,
>> performance)
>> OS out of 64 bit Windows 2003 or 2008 for Sql. I have read there seems to
>> be
>> an improvement of memory management on 2008 but is it a bit bleeding
>> edge?
>>
>>
>>
>

On all our production servers Windows 2008 has been more stable than Windows
2003. Windows 2008 is at Service Pack 1 at release:
http://blogs.msdn.com/iainmcdonald/a...ngs-right.aspx

HTH,

Plamen Ratchev
http://www.SQLStudio.com

You may want to elaborate on that recommendation a bit more as Itanium is not
really widely used. While it may have scalability advantage, you should also
consider support, user community experience, availability of drivers, and so
on.

Linchi

"Maninder" wrote:

> If you have the choice and need the best architecture, Personally, I
> will recommend ITANIUM Architecure.
> For SQl Server here is the link: http://www.microsoft.com/sql/edition.../overview.mspx
>
> SQL server 64 on windows 2003 64
>

Personally, I would be very interested in going Sql 2008. I'm going to a
London UK user group 2008 meet and party tommorrow night. However it been
quite a struggle getting the management to buy in to 2005. The jump from 2005
to 2008 looks much smaller that 2000 to 2005.

We were looking at an x64 based system. Probably an HP Proliant DL580 G5.
All our servers are HP/Compaq. I will have a read on Itanium. The cost may be
too high and the code less tested in the field as there are fewer
installations. I am not sure if Litespeed supports Itanium. This will not
matter when we finally go to SQL 2008 as it supports backup compression.
Litespeed is a must for us as we ship logs over a Wan.

I have to err on the side of safety, partly because I work as a self
employed consultant at my customer. My own Vista woes make me a bit nervous
of Windows 2008 but I do see improvements on large memory support.

There is very little if any work involved to go the extra step to 2008 if
you have already accounted for the changes to 2005 from 2000. Yes x64 bit
is what I thought but you were not clear. Litespeed should work fine on the
x64 and you may still want to use it even on 2008. First off compression is
only supported on Enterprise editions and LiteSpeed still has other features
and advantages that the native compression does not have. Don't compare
Win2008 to Vista. They are totally different animals. Win 2008 is the most
stable OS I have seen yet.

--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
Solid Quality Mentors


"Random" <Random@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:2892C648-A2A5-461A-84E6-18EBE1C65798@microsoft.com...
> Personally, I would be very interested in going Sql 2008. I'm going to a
> London UK user group 2008 meet and party tommorrow night. However it been
> quite a struggle getting the management to buy in to 2005. The jump from
> 2005
> to 2008 looks much smaller that 2000 to 2005.
>
> We were looking at an x64 based system. Probably an HP Proliant DL580 G5.
> All our servers are HP/Compaq. I will have a read on Itanium. The cost may
> be
> too high and the code less tested in the field as there are fewer
> installations. I am not sure if Litespeed supports Itanium. This will not
> matter when we finally go to SQL 2008 as it supports backup compression.
> Litespeed is a must for us as we ship logs over a Wan.
>
> I have to err on the side of safety, partly because I work as a self
> employed consultant at my customer. My own Vista woes make me a bit
> nervous
> of Windows 2008 but I do see improvements on large memory support.
>

Thanks for the input everyone.

At last nights UK SQL User group meeting the MS reprisentative also
mentioned that the install of Windows 2008 is more fine grained. ie you can
avoid installing many unneccesary options and services.

Paul