Robert McLaws: FunWithCoding.NET

Public Shared Function BrainDump(ByVal dotNet As String) As [Value]

News

<script type="text/javascript"><!-- google_ad_client = "pub-4330602465258980"; google_hints = "ASP.NET, VB.NET, C#, C#.NET, WindowsForms, .NET Framework, VS2005, Visual Studio, XAML, WinFX, Windows Workflow, WPF, WCF, Atlas, NetFX3, Visual Studio Orcas"; google_ad_width = 120; google_ad_height = 240; google_ad_format = "120x240_as"; google_ad_type = "text_image"; google_ad_channel ="4997399242"; google_color_border = "B6C9E7"; google_color_bg = "EFEFEF"; google_color_link = "0000FF"; google_color_text = "000000"; google_color_url = "002C99"; //--></script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script>
<!--
-->

You should feel free to challenge me, disagree with me, or tell me I'm completely nuts in the comments section of each blog entry, but I reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason whatsoever. That said, I will most likely only delete abusive, profane, rude, or annonymous comments, so keep it polite, please.

Blogroll

Cool .NET Articles

My .NET Tools

My Builder.com Articles

My MSKB Articles

ServerBeach: I Think I'm Getting Screwed...

I just upgraded to those 64bit servers that ServerBeach has in their new datacenter... but they're only running the 32-bit version of Windows Server 2003. I've been trying to find info, but have been unable thus far... does anyone have benchmark data on 32-bit on 32-bit, 32-bit on 64-bit, and 64-bit on 64-bit OS comparisons? I'd like to know if I'm getting screwed on performance or not.

Also, if anyone has a workaround for the WS2003 x64 limitation that I HAVE to install from a CD at boot time, that would be much appreciated as well. I can get around all this crap if I can do a clean install from inside the 32-bit WS2003. Thanks guys!

Posted: Feb 10 2006, 06:22 PM by interscape | with 2 comment(s)

Comments

foobar said:

Generally speaking, 32-bit on 64-bit runs a little faster.

They probably don't want to use 64-bit Windows, because driver and program support is still spotty.
# February 10, 2006 8:44 PM

Dan Bartels said:

I really am not sure of the perf data, I would guess that in general x64 is the same as x32... In fact it might be just a bit slower running x32 apps because of the wow layer, but I haven't noticed...

The real reason to run x64 is address space... if you are running more than 4gb of ram, x64 is a must; SQL 2005 Enterprise x64 is what the whole platform was made for (in my opinion)

There really are only a handful of apps out there that are 64 bit, and I tend to run my aspnet sites under x32 just for support and debugging (just because things should run the same doesnt mean they will)

But really without windows x64 you are just running 32bit, the eMT64 intel stuff, is really just a 32 bit processor with 64 bit extensions anyways, and the x86 windows doesnt know how to use them...

Dan
# February 28, 2006 9:50 AM