Re: Oracle 10g on W2k3 - 32 bit or 64 bit?

Charles Hooper wrote:
> Walt wrote:
>

>>I'm looking at speccing out new server hardware.  We want to move to 10.2.
>>
>>Any reason not to use the 64 bit OS instead of the 32 bit version?
>>Anybody here using 10.2 on Windows 64 bit?  Comments?  Observations?
>>
>>Smallish to mediumish database.  Our network administrators are mostly
>>Windows, so hosting on Linux or U*ix is probably a non starter. The
>>advantages of sticking with the 32 bit version is that it's not "new" -
>>we have a base of W2k3 32 bit boxen, so from an OS care and feeding
>>perspective it's just another box in the rack just like the others.  The
>>advantage of 64 bit is the larger addressable memory space which *may*
>>improve performance.  As a shop we'll be going to 64 bit for many
>>servers before long anyway (MS Exchange, for instance), so might as well
>>do it now.  But I'm not sure that Oracle is the best candidate to be the
>>guinnea pig....
>>
>>(current version 9.2 on W2k3 32 bit)

>
> If you have the opportunity to go with the 64 bit version of Windows
> 2003 and the 64 bit version of Oracle 10g R2, definitely select it over
> the 32 bit version. The 32 bit version of Windows 2003 Standard
> Edition is limited to 4GB of memory, with a maximum of 2GB per process.
> The 64 bit version of Windows 2003 Standard Edition is limited to 32GB
> of memory, with a maximum of 32GB per process. There is significantly
> less chance of bumping into the maximum per process limit on the 64 bit
> version of Windows 2003, which reduces some types of odd behavior when
> the Oracle process hits 2GB of memory allocation.
>
> Negatives: the 64 bit version requires more memory than the 32 bit
> version for the SGA, sorting operations, and probably most other
> operations. If you have a virus scanner that you typically install on
> your servers, you will need a 64 bit version of that virus scanner.
> There are a couple of fun bugs in the 10.2.0.2 version of Oracle, at
> least on 64 bit Windows 2003.

Thanks for the info.

//Walt Received on Mon Aug 07 2006 - 14:24:38 CDT