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 123»»»

Servicing SQL Server in the Future Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Monday, January 27, 2014 8:54 PM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Servicing SQL Server in the Future






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1535287
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 2:45 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:58 AM
Points: 5,819, Visits: 3,739
As a developer, as opposed to you hard working DBAs, I care little about Service Packs, CUs or even hotfixes to SQL Server. It is another area where I rely on you DBAs to know your stuff and reasonably apply it both technically as well with engagements with suppliers (such as Microsoft) not only for your benefit but also that of the community. Thanks.

Half way through reading this editorial I thought that I was not best placed to pass any kind of judgement until I read this:
...as long as this paragraph appears on CU pages, I do not think we should recommend CUs to DBAs.

"This cumulative package is intended to correct only the problems that are described in this article. Apply it only to systems that are experiencing these specific problems. The updates in this package may receive additional testing. Therefore, if you are not severely affected by any of these problems, we recommend that you wait for the next SQL Server 2012 service pack that contains the hotfixes in this package."


This means that the question of "Does this SQL Server installation have the latest patches?" becomes ambiguous as the answer could be "Yes" when it fully is "Yes, all the applicable CUs have been applied which happens to be none of them".

This is an unsatisfactory situation.


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1535344
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:27 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: Today @ 7:49 AM
Points: 680, Visits: 6,856
Testing is not something you just assume, and in most organizations it is preferred (if not mandated) to have all servers on the same level.
Even in a small environment, you usually load and test on a separate machine.
If you kept up with every CU, and tested thoroughly, some places would be in a constant state of upgrade.
Dev, QA, Prod - with a week in each, you get the picture.

It takes out a big variable if you have to move things from one server to another.
I can see where having CU's available - you have more visibility of some fixes you might be more interested in, gives you a choice.
It is better than hotfixes.

I think Service Packs still have a place.
If nothing else, designating a CU as a SP might make it easier to pick a spot to upgrade when you have multiple servers.
And certainly makes checking and knowing exactly what level those servers are at much simpler.
The more of the complete stack you leverage, the more it may matter.
Just using SQL is vastly different than when you add SSAS, SSRS, SharePoint, Tabular, etc. into the mix.
Much more testing and validation needs to occur.

So I like the flexibility CU's can give, but think SP's can make managing easier.
Bigger stake in the ground for those who may be looking for that.
Post #1535406
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 7:47 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:18 AM
Points: 60, Visits: 118
As a DBA it sounds great to say we should have the flexibility to apply CUs or SP as necessary. The difficulty is when external entities(i.e. PCI-DSS) demands that all servers be at the most recent patch level to be in compliance. The Ivory Tower types who write the PCI standards prefer blanket statements like this, rather than fretting over whether a particular patch has anything to do with security or not.
Post #1535457
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:04 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 10:32 AM
Points: 1,324, Visits: 2,941
I like the idea of Service Packs. A roll up of further tested CUs bundled together. My guess is they are moving resources away from creating SPs and into new version work. Think of how many man hours it would take to put together and test a SP for SQL2008, SQL2008R2, SQL2012 all at the same time. Personally today, when I build a new server for SQL 2008R2 I patch it to SP2 and CU7 and that is my starting point which is June of 2013.


Post #1535463
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:20 AM
SSCommitted

SSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommittedSSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, December 18, 2014 11:28 AM
Points: 1,588, Visits: 1,653
It's not just US as DBAs that have to deal with SP vs CU, it's all the vendors for the DBs we run. I have very few vendors that specify a CU level -- always a SP level.
So installing a CU isn't "just as easy" as testing a system first -- it's either convincing the vendor that the CU is OK, or applying the CU and running the risk of being unsupported. Having worked on the vendor side, I can say that most prefer to put their time into developing their product, not retro-testing a CU.
Therefore *IF* MS is moving toward a CU system, they first have to make that policy extremely and unarguably clear to the vendor community.
Post #1535480
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:29 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 2:48 PM
Points: 204, Visits: 390
I could not agree more with Steve's post. I have been a DBA for a very long time now and the thought of eliminating service packs does not settle well with me. I realize that CU updates are released regularly, however; how many of you have installed one of these updates and encountered issues having to wait for the next update to fix the issue. I read about them on a regular basis and when I do I couldn't be more thankful that I didn't install the update. I typically wait for the service pack because by the time it is released all of those problems that were caused in the CU's are fixed.
Yes, it is also time consuming to install these CU's on a regular basis and in an environment that is 25x7 that is not something that can be done. Another major downfall.. cu's are not inclusive.. so if you miss one... UGH

It seems to me that Microsoft is falling down on the job. They want more money for their software and expect to take less quality for that added cost. Give us a complete package, all inclusive, that has been tested for months that we can have confidence in... this would be the Service Pack.

Post #1535491
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:08 AM


SSC-Dedicated

SSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-DedicatedSSC-Dedicated

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:11 PM
Points: 31,368, Visits: 15,837
If you want service packs, let Microsoft know. I think they're on the fence right now, but it takes some voices voting to get them to continue with SPs.

Vote on Connect, pass the word to co-workers and friends.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #1535521
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:16 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:58 AM
Points: 5,819, Visits: 3,739
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (1/28/2014)
If you want service packs, let Microsoft know. I think they're on the fence right now, but it takes some voices voting to get them to continue with SPs.

Vote on Connect, pass the word to co-workers and friends.


For all my bravado about never having to do things like installing SQL Server in reality I have done from time to time. I wouldn't want to have to find and install all the relevant CUs. I guess if I can imagine being in that situation, albeit not very likely, then someone is going to end up in that position somewhere so my votes were for them


Gaz

-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Post #1535528
Posted Tuesday, January 28, 2014 9:17 AM
SSC Eights!

SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:45 AM
Points: 893, Visits: 2,477
Microsoft is encouraging us to pay continuous per-year fees (like the EA agreements for SA licensing), taking that money, and then failing to provide us with properly tested updates (i.e. service packs)? I find this offensive - we're paying every year, and yet getting less service than when we paid a one-off fee.

CU's are not tested as well as service packs, and are thus not comparable as a "replacement". I want that testing to have been done, even if it does miss things, before deploying updates.
Post #1535529
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 123»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse