Thanks Jamie for your information.

On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Jamie Fraser <[email protected]> wrote:

> It would seem strange to have an 8-core server running on a 32bit OS, as
> you'll be limited to 4GB RAM unless using PAE. Even when using PAE there are
> some caveats and a true 64bit OS & SQL Server will yield better performance.
>
> The number of cores supported by SQL depends on your version, I believe you
> need the Enterprise version to support 8 cores. The quickest way to check;
>
> 1) Open SQL management studio
> 2) Right click on the server and choose properties
> 3) View the Processors tab
>
> (you can also view the memory tab from here).
>
> Indexing is a good way to start (in fact, well thought and planned indexes
> are a fundamental of good database design). You should also look at any
> particularly long running queries (or commonly used short queries) and view
> the estimated / actual execution plans. You can find a lot of information
> about google on this, so I won't repeat how to do it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 6:03 AM, Kiran Raj <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>>
>> We have a migration issue. Our database was deployed in  server having
>> 64bit OS(windows 2003) and a 64-bit sql server 2005 .Due to performance
>> issue, 2 weeks back we migrated from this system to a server having 8 cores
>> CPU. It was not known to us that it was running on 32 bit windows 2003 R2
>> and 32 bit sql server 2005. So we started thinking its a database issue and
>> started optimizing the indexes of all the tables( most tables have millions
>> of records) but with no luck.
>>
>> What i want to know is will there be a performance issue based on the
>> difference in OS and SQL server versions?
>> Would other areas should i look into to increase the performance?
>> How do i check if the sql server is using all the 8 cores?
>>
>> please help as we have no clue in which direction to move forward.
>> One thing is, the hardware of the new server is many times better than the
>> old one.
>>
>> Thanks
>>  Kiran
>>
>
>

Reply via email to