Guest Niall Connaughton Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Hi, I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask here to see if I get some expert knowledge. It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service will be run as one process and will be the only process on the machine doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it to be as performant as possible. I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM in the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in the boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these options let us use all the RAM in the machine. So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give access to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read it, Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores within the processors. With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. However I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident it is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? Thanks, Niall
Guest Meinolf Weber Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Hello Niall, 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you need more you have to use Enterprise edition. Best regards Meinolf Weber Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > Hi, > > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. > > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. > > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the machine > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it > to be as performant as possible. > > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM in > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in the > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. > > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give access > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read it, > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores > within the processors. > > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. However > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident it > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. > > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? > > Thanks, > > Niall >
Guest Niall Connaughton Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Hi Meinolf, The research I've done suggests that's only the case for 2003 Standard Edition *32 bit*. I've read that x64 2003 Standard Edition supports 32 GB while x64 2003 Enterprise supports 1TB. Here are the sources of my information: 32 bit Standard and Enterprise - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx x64 Standard - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx x64 Enterprise - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405944.aspx Are you saying that information is incorrect? Thanks, Niall "Meinolf Weber" wrote: > Hello Niall, > > 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you need more > you have to use Enterprise edition. > > Best regards > > Meinolf Weber > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers > no rights. > ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups > ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my > > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and > > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask > > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. > > > > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a > > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, > > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of > > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. > > > > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses > > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB > > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service > > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the machine > > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it > > to be as performant as possible. > > > > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically > > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM in > > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My > > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can > > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a > > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in the > > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these > > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. > > > > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we > > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to > > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give access > > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read it, > > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only > > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP > > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm > > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores > > within the processors. > > > > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. However > > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident it > > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. > > > > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? > > > > Thanks, > > > > Niall > > > > >
Guest Niall Connaughton Posted August 21, 2008 Posted August 21, 2008 RE: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? I neglected to add that we are looking at R2 versions of Server 2003. "Niall Connaughton" wrote: > Hi, > > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my problem is > that finding one source of information that is whole and consistent on this > issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask here to see if I get some > expert knowledge. > > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, 32 or > 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of Standard for > installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. > > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses some > mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB of RAM and 8 > cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service will be run as one > process and will be the only process on the machine doing anything. It > processes a lot of data in real time so we want it to be as performant as > possible. > > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically what I > want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM in the machine > as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My understanding is that the > different editions of 2003 32 bit can provide access to more or less amounts > of RAM, but you still have a 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you > change a switch in the boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. > Neither of these options let us use all the RAM in the machine. > > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we will > have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to allocate a > lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give access to more than the > RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read it, Enterprise is 1TB). > I've read over comparison charts and the only other thing that concerns me is > that Standard has 4-way SMP capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot > of reading and I'm fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, > not cores within the processors. > > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. However I'm > reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident it is what I > think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. > > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? > > Thanks, > > Niall
Guest Darrell Gorter[MSFT] Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Hello, One of the questions that need to be asked is the application 32-bit or 64-bit? If the application is only 32-bit it is limited to about 4 gig even on the x64 machines, but the application has to large memory aware to use more that 2 gig. This table points out the memory limits http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx Thanks, Darrell Gorter[MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights -------------------- | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >thread-index: AckDiINugy7/x2e8R1y7gLowiSLd5Q== | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 65.55.21.8 | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:22:01 -0700 | >Lines: 87 | >Message-ID: <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> | >MIME-Version: 1.0 | >Content-Type: text/plain; | > charset="Utf-8" | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message | >Importance: normal | >Priority: normal | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43597 | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148 | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | > | >Hi Meinolf, | > | >The research I've done suggests that's only the case for 2003 Standard | >Edition *32 bit*. I've read that x64 2003 Standard Edition supports 32 GB | >while x64 2003 Enterprise supports 1TB. | > | >Here are the sources of my information: | > | >32 bit Standard and Enterprise - | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx | >x64 Standard - | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx x64 Enterprise | >- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405944.aspx | > | >Are you saying that information is incorrect? | > | >Thanks, | > | >Niall | > | >"Meinolf Weber" wrote: | > | >> Hello Niall, | >> | >> 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you need more | >> you have to use Enterprise edition. | >> | >> Best regards | >> | >> Meinolf Weber | >> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers | >> no rights. | >> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups | >> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm | >> | >> | >> > Hi, | >> > | >> > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my | >> > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and | >> > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask | >> > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. | >> > | >> > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a | >> > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, | >> > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of | >> > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. | >> > | >> > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses | >> > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB | >> > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service | >> > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the machine | >> > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it | >> > to be as performant as possible. | >> > | >> > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically | >> > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM in | >> > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My | >> > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can | >> > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a | >> > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in the | >> > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these | >> > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. | >> > | >> > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we | >> > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to | >> > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give access | >> > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read it, | >> > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only | >> > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP | >> > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm | >> > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores | >> > within the processors. | >> > | >> > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. However | >> > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident it | >> > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. | >> > | >> > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? | >> > | >> > Thanks, | >> > | >> > Niall | >> > | >> | >> | >> | >
Guest Niall Connaughton Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Hi Darrel, Thanks for your post. The applications we have are currently 32 bit, but the code is all ours, so we can compile for 64 bit. We'll probably have some problems with the C++ but that's life. So I imagine that an app built for 64 bit on a 64 bit version of Windows doesn't need any compiler flags (ie LargeAddressAware), AWE or special flags to Windows in .ini files in order to be able to allocate more than 4 GB? Is that correct? Thanks, Niall ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote: > Hello, > > One of the questions that need to be asked is the application 32-bit or > 64-bit? > If the application is only 32-bit it is limited to about 4 gig even on the > x64 machines, but the application has to large memory aware to use more > that 2 gig. > > This table points out the memory limits > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx > > Thanks, > Darrell Gorter[MSFT] > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights > -------------------- > | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >thread-index: AckDiINugy7/x2e8R1y7gLowiSLd5Q== > | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 65.55.21.8 > | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= > <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> > | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> > <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> > | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:22:01 -0700 > | >Lines: 87 > | >Message-ID: <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> > | >MIME-Version: 1.0 > | >Content-Type: text/plain; > | > charset="Utf-8" > | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 > | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message > | >Importance: normal > | >Priority: normal > | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 > | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43597 > | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148 > | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | > > | >Hi Meinolf, > | > > | >The research I've done suggests that's only the case for 2003 Standard > | >Edition *32 bit*. I've read that x64 2003 Standard Edition supports 32 > GB > | >while x64 2003 Enterprise supports 1TB. > | > > | >Here are the sources of my information: > | > > | >32 bit Standard and Enterprise - > | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx > | >x64 Standard - > | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx x64 > Enterprise > | >- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405944.aspx > | > > | >Are you saying that information is incorrect? > | > > | >Thanks, > | > > | >Niall > | > > | >"Meinolf Weber" wrote: > | > > | >> Hello Niall, > | >> > | >> 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you need > more > | >> you have to use Enterprise edition. > | >> > | >> Best regards > | >> > | >> Meinolf Weber > | >> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and > confers > | >> no rights. > | >> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups > | >> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > | >> > | >> > | >> > Hi, > | >> > > | >> > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my > | >> > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and > | >> > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask > | >> > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. > | >> > > | >> > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a > | >> > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, > | >> > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of > | >> > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. > | >> > > | >> > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses > | >> > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB > | >> > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service > | >> > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the > machine > | >> > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it > | >> > to be as performant as possible. > | >> > > | >> > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically > | >> > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM > in > | >> > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My > | >> > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can > | >> > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a > | >> > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in > the > | >> > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these > | >> > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. > | >> > > | >> > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we > | >> > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to > | >> > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give > access > | >> > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read > it, > | >> > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only > | >> > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP > | >> > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm > | >> > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores > | >> > within the processors. > | >> > > | >> > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. > However > | >> > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident > it > | >> > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. > | >> > > | >> > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? > | >> > > | >> > Thanks, > | >> > > | >> > Niall > | >> > > | >> > | >> > | >> > | > > >
Guest Darrell Gorter[MSFT] Posted August 22, 2008 Posted August 22, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Hello Niall, If the app is compiled for 64-bit you shouldn't need the special flags either in Windows or in the compiler. Thanks, Darrell Gorter[MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights -------------------- | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >thread-index: AckEYyQI9FVajXPAT6qA/UUdTbJUHw== | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207 | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> <PUqXj0#AJHA.1696@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl> | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:27:00 -0700 | >Lines: 161 | >Message-ID: <3D833DD5-B025-4BFE-9DA5-456BE5502A3A@microsoft.com> | >MIME-Version: 1.0 | >Content-Type: text/plain; | > charset="Utf-8" | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message | >Importance: normal | >Priority: normal | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43670 | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149 | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | > | >Hi Darrel, | > | >Thanks for your post. The applications we have are currently 32 bit, but the | >code is all ours, so we can compile for 64 bit. We'll probably have some | >problems with the C++ but that's life. | > | >So I imagine that an app built for 64 bit on a 64 bit version of Windows | >doesn't need any compiler flags (ie LargeAddressAware), AWE or special flags | >to Windows in .ini files in order to be able to allocate more than 4 GB? Is | >that correct? | > | >Thanks, | > | >Niall | > | >""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote: | > | >> Hello, | >> | >> One of the questions that need to be asked is the application 32-bit or | >> 64-bit? | >> If the application is only 32-bit it is limited to about 4 gig even on the | >> x64 machines, but the application has to large memory aware to use more | >> that 2 gig. | >> | >> This table points out the memory limits | >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx | >> | >> Thanks, | >> Darrell Gorter[MSFT] | >> | >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights | >> -------------------- | >> | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >> | >thread-index: AckDiINugy7/x2e8R1y7gLowiSLd5Q== | >> | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 65.55.21.8 | >> | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= | >> <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> | >> | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> | >> <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> | >> | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? | >> | >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:22:01 -0700 | >> | >Lines: 87 | >> | >Message-ID: <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> | >> | >MIME-Version: 1.0 | >> | >Content-Type: text/plain; | >> | > charset="Utf-8" | >> | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit | >> | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 | >> | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message | >> | >Importance: normal | >> | >Priority: normal | >> | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 | >> | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | >> | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl | >> | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl | >> microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43597 | >> | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148 | >> | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general | >> | > | >> | >Hi Meinolf, | >> | > | >> | >The research I've done suggests that's only the case for 2003 Standard | >> | >Edition *32 bit*. I've read that x64 2003 Standard Edition supports 32 | >> GB | >> | >while x64 2003 Enterprise supports 1TB. | >> | > | >> | >Here are the sources of my information: | >> | > | >> | >32 bit Standard and Enterprise - | >> | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx | >> | >x64 Standard - | >> | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx x64 | >> Enterprise | >> | >- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405944.aspx | >> | > | >> | >Are you saying that information is incorrect? | >> | > | >> | >Thanks, | >> | > | >> | >Niall | >> | > | >> | >"Meinolf Weber" wrote: | >> | > | >> | >> Hello Niall, | >> | >> | >> | >> 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you need | >> more | >> | >> you have to use Enterprise edition. | >> | >> | >> | >> Best regards | >> | >> | >> | >> Meinolf Weber | >> | >> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and | >> confers | >> | >> no rights. | >> | >> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups | >> | >> ** HELP us help YOU!!! http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> > Hi, | >> | >> > | >> | >> > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but my | >> | >> > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole and | >> | >> > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought I'd ask | >> | >> > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to install on a | >> | >> > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise editions, | >> | >> > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the price of | >> | >> > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which uses | >> | >> > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at least 8GB | >> | >> > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The service | >> | >> > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the | >> machine | >> | >> > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we want it | >> | >> > to be as performant as possible. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. Basically | >> | >> > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the RAM | >> in | >> | >> > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My | >> | >> > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can | >> | >> > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still have a | >> | >> > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch in | >> the | >> | >> > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of these | >> | >> > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is that we | >> | >> > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be able to | >> | >> > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give | >> access | >> | >> > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've read | >> it, | >> | >> > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the only | >> | >> > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP | >> | >> > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading and I'm | >> | >> > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not cores | >> | >> > within the processors. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. | >> However | >> | >> > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully confident | >> it | >> | >> > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP capabilities. | >> | >> > | >> | >> > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice please? | >> | >> > | >> | >> > Thanks, | >> | >> > | >> | >> > Niall | >> | >> > | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | >> | > | >> | >> | >
Guest Niall Connaughton Posted August 27, 2008 Posted August 27, 2008 Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? Thanks Darrell. Niall ""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote: > Hello Niall, > If the app is compiled for 64-bit you shouldn't need the special flags > either in Windows or in the compiler. > Thanks, > Darrell Gorter[MSFT] > > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights > -------------------- > | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >thread-index: AckEYyQI9FVajXPAT6qA/UUdTbJUHw== > | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 207.46.193.207 > | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= > <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> > | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> > <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> > <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> > <PUqXj0#AJHA.1696@TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl> > | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:27:00 -0700 > | >Lines: 161 > | >Message-ID: <3D833DD5-B025-4BFE-9DA5-456BE5502A3A@microsoft.com> > | >MIME-Version: 1.0 > | >Content-Type: text/plain; > | > charset="Utf-8" > | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 > | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message > | >Importance: normal > | >Priority: normal > | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 > | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43670 > | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftibfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.149 > | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | > > | >Hi Darrel, > | > > | >Thanks for your post. The applications we have are currently 32 bit, but > the > | >code is all ours, so we can compile for 64 bit. We'll probably have some > | >problems with the C++ but that's life. > | > > | >So I imagine that an app built for 64 bit on a 64 bit version of Windows > | >doesn't need any compiler flags (ie LargeAddressAware), AWE or special > flags > | >to Windows in .ini files in order to be able to allocate more than 4 GB? > Is > | >that correct? > | > > | >Thanks, > | > > | >Niall > | > > | >""Darrell Gorter[MSFT]"" wrote: > | > > | >> Hello, > | >> > | >> One of the questions that need to be asked is the application 32-bit > or > | >> 64-bit? > | >> If the application is only 32-bit it is limited to about 4 gig even on > the > | >> x64 machines, but the application has to large memory aware to use > more > | >> that 2 gig. > | >> > | >> This table points out the memory limits > | >> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx > | >> > | >> Thanks, > | >> Darrell Gorter[MSFT] > | >> > | >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no > rights > | >> -------------------- > | >> | >Thread-Topic: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >> | >thread-index: AckDiINugy7/x2e8R1y7gLowiSLd5Q== > | >> | >X-WBNR-Posting-Host: 65.55.21.8 > | >> | >From: =?Utf-8?B?TmlhbGwgQ29ubmF1Z2h0b24=?= > | >> <NiallConnaughton@discussions.microsoft.com> > | >> | >References: <5DA9B5E0-C7F9-44A0-8BE7-892BC7280EC1@microsoft.com> > | >> <ff16fb664baa8cad1ae50100d80@msnews.microsoft.com> > | >> | >Subject: Re: Which edition of Server 2003 x64? > | >> | >Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:22:01 -0700 > | >> | >Lines: 87 > | >> | >Message-ID: <884FD87F-61B9-41E3-A4E0-ADB17B52A6AA@microsoft.com> > | >> | >MIME-Version: 1.0 > | >> | >Content-Type: text/plain; > | >> | > charset="Utf-8" > | >> | >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > | >> | >X-Newsreader: Microsoft CDO for Windows 2000 > | >> | >Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message > | >> | >Importance: normal > | >> | >Priority: normal > | >> | >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.3119 > | >> | >Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | >> | >Path: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > | >> | >Xref: TK2MSFTNGHUB02.phx.gbl > | >> microsoft.public.windows.server.general:43597 > | >> | >NNTP-Posting-Host: tk2msftsbfm01.phx.gbl 10.40.244.148 > | >> | >X-Tomcat-NG: microsoft.public.windows.server.general > | >> | > > | >> | >Hi Meinolf, > | >> | > > | >> | >The research I've done suggests that's only the case for 2003 > Standard > | >> | >Edition *32 bit*. I've read that x64 2003 Standard Edition supports > 32 > | >> GB > | >> | >while x64 2003 Enterprise supports 1TB. > | >> | > > | >> | >Here are the sources of my information: > | >> | > > | >> | >32 bit Standard and Enterprise - > | >> | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb430827.aspx > | >> | >x64 Standard - > | >> | >http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405950.aspx x64 > | >> Enterprise > | >> | >- http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsserver/bb405944.aspx > | >> | > > | >> | >Are you saying that information is incorrect? > | >> | > > | >> | >Thanks, > | >> | > > | >> | >Niall > | >> | > > | >> | >"Meinolf Weber" wrote: > | >> | > > | >> | >> Hello Niall, > | >> | >> > | >> | >> 2003 Standard edition can not use more then 4GB RAM. Because you > need > | >> more > | >> | >> you have to use Enterprise edition. > | >> | >> > | >> | >> Best regards > | >> | >> > | >> | >> Meinolf Weber > | >> | >> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, > and > | >> confers > | >> | >> no rights. > | >> | >> ** Please do NOT email, only reply to Newsgroups > | >> | >> ** HELP us help YOU!!! > http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm > | >> | >> > | >> | >> > | >> | >> > Hi, > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > I'm going to ask a question you've probably seen a lot of, but > my > | >> | >> > problem is that finding one source of information that is whole > and > | >> | >> > consistent on this issue has been quite tricky. So I thought > I'd ask > | >> | >> > here to see if I get some expert knowledge. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > It have to decide what version of Windows Server 2003 to > install on a > | >> | >> > collection of servers, choosing from Standard or Enterprise > editions, > | >> | >> > 32 or 64 bit. Our provider charges us roughly 3-4 times the > price of > | >> | >> > Standard for installing and maintaining Enterprise edition. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > On the servers, we'll be running a service written in C# which > uses > | >> | >> > some mixed managed/unmanaged C++ code. The machines have at > least 8GB > | >> | >> > of RAM and 8 cores (dual CPU quad core Xeon machines). The > service > | >> | >> > will be run as one process and will be the only process on the > | >> machine > | >> | >> > doing anything. It processes a lot of data in real time so we > want it > | >> | >> > to be as performant as possible. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > I'm a developer, not a hardware or operating system expert. > Basically > | >> | >> > what I want is for the process to be able to use as much of the > RAM > | >> in > | >> | >> > the machine as it needs, without having to write AWE code. My > | >> | >> > understanding is that the different editions of 2003 32 bit can > | >> | >> > provide access to more or less amounts of RAM, but you still > have a > | >> | >> > 2GB address space limit per process, 3GB if you change a switch > in > | >> the > | >> | >> > boot.ini file to make Windows use less for itself. Neither of > these > | >> | >> > options let us use all the RAM in the machine. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > So I'm looking at x64 versions of 2003. My understanding is > that we > | >> | >> > will have a 64 bit address space and so each process will be > able to > | >> | >> > allocate a lot more than 2GB. Both Standard and Enterprise give > | >> access > | >> | >> > to more than the RAM we have (Standard is 32GB max where I've > read > | >> it, > | >> | >> > Enterprise is 1TB). I've read over comparison charts and the > only > | >> | >> > other thing that concerns me is that Standard has 4-way SMP > | >> | >> > capability, Enterprise has 8-way. I've done a lot of reading > and I'm > | >> | >> > fairly confident that is referring to physical processors, not > cores > | >> | >> > within the processors. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > With this information, it would seem Standard meets our needs. > | >> However > | >> | >> > I'm reluctant to choose the lesser option until I'm fully > confident > | >> it > | >> | >> > is what I think it is, especially in regards to the SMP > capabilities. > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > Can anyone correct any of my information or give some advice > please? > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > Thanks, > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > Niall > | >> | >> > > | >> | >> > | >> | >> > | >> | >> > | >> | > > | >> > | >> > | > > >
Recommended Posts