Peter,
I see no one has replied to your message. We have run large data warehouses
on both SQL 2000 32 bit and 64 bit. By large I mean the sources are over
1TB and the resulting DW is 300GB of primary data and 600GB of historical
data. While it is true that Windows 2000 32 bit can only directly access up
to 3GB of RAM, it can access up to 64GB of RAM using PAE and AWE. Yes its
slower and has limitations but still much faster than waiting on disk IO.
If you just need an RDBMS (not DTS) and are in the market for a new server,
I recommend the 64 bit SQL over the 32 bit.
So to answer your request... Yes there are companies that have large DWs in
production on SQL both 32 and 64 bit.
[quoted text, click to view] "Peter Nolan" <peter@peternolan.com> wrote in message
news:1119365008.501182.264380@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Hi All,
> I was browsing for recent articles and saw the attached...
>
> Unisys also released a benchmark TPC-H on a 16 processor windows
> machine....
>
> But my question is how well is win 2003/sql server 2005 scaling on
> windows now? I've recently upgraded some software I developed to
> provide unlimited scalability on unix systems (more processes running
> but no more memory)....I understood win2000+ to still be limited to
> about 3GB memory though there is ability to request more but colleagues
> say it sometimes does not work so well...
>
> I'd be intersted to hear from anyone who is really doing sizable DWs on
> win2003 in 32 bit mode....or even if you are doing 64 bit mode it might
> be interesting.....
>
> I would like to hear purely on the basis that when my clients ask if
> sql server can support them my current answer is that if they need more
> than 4 CPUs to support the ETL or query load I am saying they should
> probably pass and go for solaris/AIX...
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Peter Nolan.
>
>
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050621/sftu040.html?.v=15 >
