InstantForum.NET v2.9.0SQLServerCentralhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/notifications@sqlservercentral.comSun, 19 May 2013 17:05:01 GMT20http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspxSorry Steve, but when some people have hundreds of SQL 2000 DTS packages, I see SSIS as a driving need to upgrade. I did. You can run legacy packages just fine until you re-engineer them. If you install the SQL-DTS add-in, then you can even edit legacy DTS packages. Be careful though, installing this component will disable your SQL 2000 Management Studio.Brandon_Forest@sbcglobla.netMon, 21 Apr 2008 10:11:19 GMTBrandon Foresthttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspxI wonder how much the numbers would change if the survey was conducted now (a year later). Also, would the delay in the release of SS 2008 make any difference.All but one of our client sites are running 2000 with the other one running on 2005 in 2000 compatibility mode. We are currently developing a revamped system with a 2005 DB. However, it will be up to our customers if they want to pay for the updated system. Currently no plans in the works to go to 2008.Wed, 02 Apr 2008 15:52:34 GMTIan Crandellhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspxWe have 7 large sql 2005 servers with 8-16 cores and 32-64 gigs of ram running windows 2003 64 bit. Benefits we have seen are as follows:- Stability- Large amounts of native addressable memory.- Increased server consolidation.- Optimization times for large complex queries can be 8+ times faster.- Dynamic management view provides a lot more meaningful information to dba's and developers.64 bit give us the ability to simultaneously run sql server, analysis services and reporting services on the same server with good performance and stability.- Useful new features such as CTE's, cross apply with table value functions, etc.- SSIS has been a mixed bag, but overall an improvement.We have a large sql server install base with over 800 databases. Our dba's can not wait until all our database are converted to 2005 since they find 2005 more stable and easier to work with. Going back to sql server 2000 would be painful.Fri, 28 Mar 2008 07:28:08 GMTrichcoulsonhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspx<P>Wonderful timing! I am preparing a proposal to upgrade from SQL 7 to 2005. I found the survey very helpful, and the citing of the quotes pro/con most helpful. Question: who else has upgraded directly from 7 to 2005? Any 'common' pitfalls to watch out for?</P><P>Thanks in advance!</P>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:36:00 GMTsteve smith-401573http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspx<P>Thanks Steve, that was good article. Some of the features i really like in SQL Server 2005 are</P><UL><LI>CTEs.</LI><LI>XML Support.</LI><LI>Try catch blocks</LI><LI>Online indexings.</LI><LI>CLR integration.</LI></UL><P>If your application does not need any of the new features of SQL Server 2005, i personally feel there is no need to upgrade.</P>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 14:03:00 GMTcutespnhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspx<P>We have a brand new project and we develop in SQL Server 2005 since there is nothing to convert, nothing to affect production. So far we haven't used too much of the new features.</P><P>As for the old systems, I don't know if we will move to SQL Server 2005.</P>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 10:54:00 GMTLonerhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspxWhat changes in 2005 do you attribute the perf increases to?Wed, 28 Mar 2007 08:24:00 GMTAndy Warrenhttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspx<P>We recently upgraded our application to SS 2005. </P><P>The process was painless. We simply restored a 2000 backup to 2005, upped the compatibility level, and QA'ed the environment. </P><P>After the application went live, we ran a profiler trace, and the Performance Tuning Wizard, reviewed and ran in the recommendations, and immediately we saw a VERY significant performance improvement. We've been through these same hoops on 2000 without the same success...</P><P>Oh also, we're running the standard, not enterprise edition. Which is fine for our purposes. So the expense is reduced to around $6k per *physical* cpu. </P><P>Upgrading to enterprise, may well have bought extra benefits in terms of the performance boost of seamless (as I understand it) re-use of materialized views. At least Microsoft say it does, but it was outside the upgrade budget.</P><P>At this stage, we've seen no issue with stability or anything else..</P><P> </P>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 03:10:00 GMTMatthew Evanshttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspx<P>I think the most significant quote from the results is </P><P>"unless your company is operating at a CMM level 3 or higher -- don't upgrade and simply deploy new systems on 2005."</P><P>This is putting some governance metrics around the way shops are organised, and their ability to deliver stable applications. Although CMM certification is still a minority sport, the CMM process is relevant to everyone. </P><P>If your organisation cannot match up to CMM level 3, then you should know at the outset that any upgrade to SQL 2005 is almost certainly going to go over time and budget, and will initially give a less stable environment than you have now. Even if you or your management believe the opposite...</P>Wed, 28 Mar 2007 02:49:00 GMTEdVassiehttp://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic353655-32-1.aspxComments posted here are about the content posted at <A HREF="http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/2943.asp">http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/2943.asp</A>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 17:36:00 GMTSteve Jones - SSC Editor