Server 2008: 64-bit Standard or 32-bit Enterprise?

[rhyno2k]

Hi,


Trying to decide whether to go 64-bit Standard or 32-bit Enterprise for our new Server 2008 box. We're a small company, but I do plan to fully utilize Virtualization. And because of that, I'd like to run with 8 GB of memory, which is not an option with 32-bit Standard Edition.

Enterprise is quite a bit more ($1500+), but being 32-bit would be the most compatible software choice right now. On the flip side, 64-bit Standard is a lot cheaper, and it's certainly optimized for future use.

I see this being a Hyper-V Server(s) Host, Exchange Server (2007 SP1) w/GFI, File Server and Web Application Server.

Anyone have any thoughts/preferences? My main concern is software compatibility.

Thanks.

 

[technome]

Rhyno2k, I realize you likely saw this link and most of the comments, you have already dealt with.....

Go to the right side of this page for comparisons....

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2008/en/us/editions-overview.aspx

If you go with 8 meg ram, the standard 64 bit or 32 bit Enterprise/datacenter are your only options. It would be a sin to use less than 8 Meg, I now have a new Dell 2900III, 3.0 Ghz quad with standard 64 bit with 8Meg running the eval, will boost it to 12 in the near future; I am not planning on using the Hyper-v. 2008 loves ram, and is worth feeding 8 or more Gigs.
So far I will need to get a new version of AV, SQL will need to be upgraded, and Backup Exec upgraded, so far this will be about $1500 (an SQL upgrade is tagged with Great Pains Dynamics annual pound of flesh fee, so it is included).
The 32 bit OS for servers has a limited future, overall if you go 32 bit, the pain will never end, and will only get worse. I would take the 64 bit bullet now.
I have installed about a dozen 32 bit programs in this server beside the above mentioned, 2 did not work in the 32 bit compatibility mode, no too bad. No performance difference between the two versions on benchmarks, but with real programs, extra ram will make a big difference.

Rhyno2k, I assume you will be using an intelligent raid adapter, you would likely benefit from using a smaller than default stripe size due to Exchange.




........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[rhyno2k]

Technome,


Thanks for your thoughts. I have come to the same conclusion - time to bite the 64-bit bullet. I can either use compatibility mode (10/12 - not bad) or virtualize older apps. $1500 cheaper, either way!

I'm getting the integrated PERC 6i for RAID. Never tweaked any RAID settings before... will have to look into "stripe sizes".


--RHYNO
"Great Pains" lol

 

[technome]

The Perc6/i is what the referenced server has, along with SAS drives. Per chance if you use raid 1, you have the ability to change the stripe size without loosing data, raid 5 does not offer this ability. With the Perc 6i, the write back enabled has a decent performance increase on raid 1, unlike older percs adapters; as a given, if you use raid 5, you must use "write back" to get really high throughput, with "write thru" you might as well use a stand alone IDE drive, perhaps a MFM drive..don't get me wrong raid 5 rocks with decent disks and write back.

On "general use" servers, the default of 64k stripe is the best stripe size... on database or servers which primarily have a specific data chunk size, the 64k stripe is generally not the fastest; I am actually thinking in Windows 2000/2003 mode..Win 2008 is a much different, it caches small data chunks in ram (with 8 Megs)... the previous OSes, concentrated caching on very large chunks, and there was drive activity during benchmarking on all data chunk sizes; once data below 30 Meg in size is loaded in 2008, the drives are not accessed, at least in benchmarks.

I tried 32k and 128k stripes, on 2008, but 2008 uses ram for caching quite extensively and saw very little difference. I wonder if 16k or 8k stripes would make a positive difference.

"Great Pains" was using Great Plains when they stated you could run it on Win98... now that was an operation without anesthesia.

Sorry for the rambling

........................................
Chernobyl disaster..a must see pictorial

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

 

[kmcferrin]

Why are you trying to decide between 32-bit Enterprise or 64-bit Standard? If you need the feature set of enterprise, why not get 64-bit Enterprise? Pricing should be the same regardless of whether it is 32 or 64 bit.

Also, for the record, you cannot run Hyper-V on 32-bit Windows. So if you're planning on using virtualization your choice is already made for you.

________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003