Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

When Will You Upgrade to SQL Server 2012? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 12:54 AM
Mr or Mrs. 500

Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500Mr or Mrs. 500

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:16 AM
Points: 579, Visits: 1,256
We're in exactly the same situation as Bob Barrows, even down to the one app that's keeping a SQL2000 server going!

We have the added delay that any new software has to be tested and approved for use by the civil service before we can consider it and that can take a long time.
Post #1292281
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 1:49 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 9:32 AM
Points: 1,417, Visits: 809
Of course, the first version of Oracle was 'Oracle V2' because they knoew people would be vary of 'V1'!
Post #1292294
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 1:49 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:18 AM
Points: 58, Visits: 225
I think for a lot of DBAs it's a comfort thing as well.

I know I have all my tools set up the way I like them, all my alerts fire properly when they're supposed to and my monitoring stuff gives me a good picture of what's happening, and what happened a while ago.

When problems with the apps happen, I know exactly where too look to hit the problem quickly.

I *still* get confused by the 2008 activity monitor change :) when I have to use the 2008 SSMS and yes, it's going to be a huge investment in time and resources to upgrade to 2008 and then 2012 and still provide the day-to-day support of the existing infrastructure.


DBA (Dogsbody with Bad Attitude)
Post #1292295
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 3:33 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:04 AM
Points: 9, Visits: 45
I'm surprised that one other type of response has not been mentioned yet, so let me be the first.

We have no budget for any expenditure on non-critical software upgrades.



Post #1292345
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 5:29 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 4:44 AM
Points: 230, Visits: 852
When I ask vendors why, they generally tell me that they don’t have the in-house resources to do the testing. In other words, they are cheap and don’t want to spend the money.


While I completely agree that this is true in many cases playing devil's advocate I know that there are some smaller houses who really don't have the time, money or resources to keep up with the latest new sql releases all the time.

Take someone who's just purchased sql server 08 last year and spent a year developing their new software product and need to get it to market and get sales for the next year or 2 to recoup their investment and pay the bills let alone have any extra for product upgrade, not to mention support costs of the existing product.

Situations like this come down to their prices and sales volumes and business feasibility and unfortunately there are some software vendors who struggle day to day to make more than a small margin and just manage to stay in the black.

So I'm not sure if "generally" is the right word but then again maybe I know more smaller vendors than larger ones so my perspective is more skewed in that regards.
Post #1292410
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 5:44 AM
Right there with Babe

Right there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with BabeRight there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:15 AM
Points: 763, Visits: 2,292
We have one database that we'll be migrating from 2005 to 2012 this year and another that we'll be migrating to 2008R2. Aside from those two, the rest of our databases are 2005. We'll be slowly migrating them, but I'm not sure if they'll go to 2008 or 2012.



The opinions expressed herein are strictly personal and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of my employer.
Post #1292422
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 5:59 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:58 AM
Points: 1,326, Visits: 2,950
We are in the middle of our largest SQL Server in our stores upgrade right now. The DB is moving from a Win2003 Active/Passive cluster running on SQL2000. The new environment is all Win2008R2 and the db is an active/passive Win2008R2 cluster running SQL2008R2. It will be rolled out to all of our stores by July. Our other large SQL2000 Cluster has 25 dbs and two of them have been moved to another Win2008/SQL2008R2 Cluster with the others in the beginning stages of dev/test.

Other than that we have a handful of other smaller dbs in SQL2000 yet to convert. I expect 90% of those will be converted by June of next year.

We have about 250 SQL Server dbs here.

Based on the fact that our critical store apps dbs will be just fresh moved to SQL2008R2 this year I just don't see SQL2012 being a we need to upgrade to it in the next few years at all. I am sure we will have a few apps that we will upgrade in the coming few years that will require SQL2012. However, I just don't see us upgrading just because the new version is out.



Post #1292435
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 5:59 AM
UDP Broadcaster

UDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP BroadcasterUDP Broadcaster

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 7:44 AM
Points: 1,449, Visits: 2,168
Our client base (for our software solution) mainly uses XP so upgrading is not even "thinkable". We're a particular niche and we must conform to this situation.
Post #1292436
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 6:52 AM
Say Hey Kid

Say Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey KidSay Hey Kid

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, December 22, 2014 5:46 AM
Points: 708, Visits: 1,790
If I want to use a recent version of SQL Server in production, I'll have to change companies. I have more up-to-date hardware and software than my employer does...
Post #1292471
Posted Monday, April 30, 2012 7:00 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 4, 2014 7:58 AM
Points: 20, Visits: 82
This is a business, in the business to be profitable. There is no justifiable business reason for us to spend the incredible amount of time and money it would cost to upgrade when the current version works just fine. Microsoft makes so many changes to licensing models that determining which edition you need to go to to keep the features you have is mind boggling. Can't simply go from 2005 Standard to 2012 Standard and assume that they didn't bump some of your required features up to the much more expensive editions (which they have, of course). That bad habit alone will keep us in 2005 for a long, long time.


Post #1292480
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase ««1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse