hello,

I have to to buy a new Baan server and I am thinking to install W2003 x64 in order to improve performance ( memory addressing limitations ).
Has anyone installed baan in a 64 bits environment ?
windows 64 bits ?
sql 2005 64 bits / sql 2000 32bits ?

thanks.

I have a customer that is running HPUX/Oracle on an Itanium, and they will be moving to Windows on the same server, but I have not personally seen Windows on 64 bit as of yet. No problems with HPUX/Oracle on the Itanium.

Thanks,

Vince

Hi jose,
Yes Baan would work on 64 bit environment but dont expect it to fly. Baan4 still and will remain a 32 bit application, as per baan support. Now to make Baan4 work on a 64 bit environment or SQL 2005 you would need porting set 6.1c.7.13, this again courtesy baan support. Thats the only requirement from Baan.

Check out the other threads regarding 64bit for more info...


sk

thanks for your fast reply,
In a 2-tier and 32 bit architecture I have only 4 GB of real phisical addressing. In the user mode portion I have only 2 GB of process adressing ( without /3GB), in this 2 GB must fit Baan and SQL server ( database buffer can be above with AWE ).
With a 64 bit hardware and Windows I can have for example:
a ) more than 2 GB for kernel ( I think 2 GB it´s enougt )
b) 4 GB, only for baan ( 32 bits )
c ) another 4 GB only for SQL 2000 ( if I don´t want sql 2005 64 bits )
d ) 20 GB for db pages ( AWE )

With this environment I have eliminate the b and c bottleneck.
But, has anyone prove this solution, and/or with sqlserver 2005 64 bits ?

Many times the theory fails, ...

thanks everybody.

Hello,
just read your comments about that-we are in the same situation and it would be nice if you can tell me if it works (64bit both windows and sql server) and if yes how about scalability/performance?

Best Regards bruce

thanks for your fast reply,
In a 2-tier and 32 bit architecture I have only 4 GB of real phisical addressing. In the user mode portion I have only 2 GB of process adressing ( without /3GB), in this 2 GB must fit Baan and SQL server ( database buffer can be above with AWE ).
With a 64 bit hardware and Windows I can have for example:
a ) more than 2 GB for kernel ( I think 2 GB it´s enougt )
b) 4 GB, only for baan ( 32 bits )
c ) another 4 GB only for SQL 2000 ( if I don´t want sql 2005 64 bits )
d ) 20 GB for db pages ( AWE )

With this environment I have eliminate the b and c bottleneck.
But, has anyone prove this solution, and/or with sqlserver 2005 64 bits ?

Many times the theory fails, ...

thanks everybody.

I´m going to install it definitely in 3-4 months.
In some test it seems to run well but I haven´t test the performance because my test machine was only a PC with only 4 GB of Ram.

If you have high pagining activity it has to improve the performance.

hi,
could you install and any bench marks...any better performance...

beacuse we too are on the same boat of migrating few baan servers.

I am thinking of 2003 64 bit, sql2005 64bit...

can you please update your experiences, it will help.

Thanks

Hello,
I´m very sorry but we have delayed the migration because now we are going to hire the machine and Baan maintenance instead of buy the server.
I think my "Baan Provider" is going to ask for the new server on february and they will finish the migration at the beginning of may ( 2008).
I still can´t say you the 64 bits performace.
sorry

Hello,
we made some tests to compare the difference between Oracle/Sql Server on a windows-machine. For SQL-Server we installed Win-Server 2003 x64 with the newest ERP LN-Portingset. Everything works as expected (installation, executing of sessions).
In my opinion if you want to install ERPlN on a SQL-Server DB you should always use the x64 version as you don't have the 4GB-memory limitation - and it should work therefore faster.
However in comparision to Oracle 9 x86 the SQL-Server x64 was slower (Oracle has been tuned very heavy-and Oracle 10 is slower than version 9)

-hope that helps martin