We've recently got a new Server in.
The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
in Win 2003
Any pros/cons of both ?
Any recommendations ?
We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
are automatically rebuilt..
In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
service pack ?
Anything else to look out for ?Win2003 has several enhancements that canmake it very worth while. The cpu
scheduling and parallism is improved along with many improvements in the
file and I/O areas. Win2003 is just a better choice overall for an
enterprise server in my opinion.
--
Andrew J. Kelly
SQL Server MVP
"Steve" <stevekeilygroups@.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:70809952.0311191644.338d1eb3@.posting.google.com...
> We've recently got a new Server in.
> The server has 16Gb of RAM, 8 cpus etc
> We now have a choice of sticking with Windows 2000 Advanced Server or
> going with Windows 2003 Enterprise edition.
> Besides being able to use more RAM and having to use Service pack 3a
> in Win 2003
> Any pros/cons of both ?
> Any recommendations ?
> We use Full text, replication, analysis services etc
> What issues / Enhancements has MS introduced for sp3A ?
> I know that once Service pack 3A is installed all full text indexes
> are automatically rebuilt..
> In a replication scenario Is it necessary or just a recommendation
> that all participants in the replication scenario are using the same
> service pack ?
>
> Anything else to look out for ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment