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

SQL Server 2005 Adoption Survey Results Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Friday, March 23, 2007 5:36 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 11:24 AM
Points: 32,781, Visits: 14,942
Comments posted here are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/2943.asp






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #353655
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:49 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, April 14, 2014 3:21 AM
Points: 2,797, Visits: 3,079

I think the most significant quote from the results is

"unless your company is operating at a CMM level 3 or higher -- don't upgrade and simply deploy new systems on 2005."

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. 

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...



Original author: SQL Server FineBuild 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005. 25 March 2014: now over 28,000 downloads.
Disclaimer: All information provided is a personal opinion that may not match reality.
Concept: "Pizza Apartheid" - the discrimination that separates those who earn enough in one day to buy a pizza if they want one, from those who can not.
Post #354406
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:10 AM
Grasshopper

GrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopperGrasshopper

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 6:58 AM
Points: 11, Visits: 14

We recently upgraded our application to SS 2005.

The process was painless. We simply restored a 2000 backup to 2005, upped the compatibility level, and QA'ed the environment.

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...

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.

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.

At this stage, we've seen no issue with stability or anything else..

 

Post #354407
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 8:24 AM
SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: Moderators
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 9:01 AM
Points: 6,705, Visits: 1,680
What changes in 2005 do you attribute the perf increases to?

Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Post #354510
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 10:54 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, April 08, 2014 8:31 AM
Points: 2,800, Visits: 3,041

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.

As for the old systems, I don't know if we will move to SQL Server 2005.

Post #354583
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:03 PM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Sunday, July 25, 2010 12:00 PM
Points: 125, Visits: 20

Thanks Steve, that was good article. Some of the features i really like in SQL Server 2005 are

  • CTEs.
  • XML Support.
  • Try catch blocks
  • Online indexings.
  • CLR integration.

If your application does not need any of the new features of SQL Server 2005, i personally feel there is no need to upgrade.








Regards,
Sudheer 

My Blog

Post #354631
Posted Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:36 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: Friday, September 21, 2012 1:52 PM
Points: 696, Visits: 743

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?

Thanks in advance!

Post #354764
Posted Friday, March 28, 2008 7:28 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

SSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-EnthusiasticSSC-Enthusiastic

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:00 AM
Points: 136, Visits: 64
We 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.



Post #476082
Posted Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:52 PM


SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:20 AM
Points: 269, Visits: 1,093
I 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.


Ian.

"If you are going through hell, keep going."
-- Winston Churchill
Post #478876
Posted Monday, April 21, 2008 10:11 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, April 11, 2014 1:02 PM
Points: 64, Visits: 360
Sorry 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.net
Post #488086
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase

Permissions Expand / Collapse