The Differences Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Question

The Differences Between SQL Server 2000 and 2005

Steve Jones - SSC Editor

SSC Guru

Points: 734434
More actions
May 3, 2007 at 2:51 pm

#62654

Comments posted here are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/2988.asp

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 55 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply

Mark Ashworth SSC Enthusiast Points: 152 More actions · Answer 1

Good Day,

Great article outlining the differences. Is there a resource on the internet where we can determine what are the differences between SQL 2005 Express and SQL 2005 Standard and so forth.

Regards,

Mark P Ashworth

Bob Stahr SSC Veteran Points: 221 More actions · Answer 2

More RAM = More Performace. That is what I hope to see as we transition ~6 Servers running ~ 20 databases in 2000 to a singl 64bit SQL2005 box, and a hot swapp stand by box with mirroring of all databases to it. We'll see how it goes! Big project underway now to get this done.

rob mcnicol SSC Eights! Points: 834 More actions · Answer 3

hi steve,

thanks for the article and thanks for your reply to my post last week about which version of 2005 must be purchased to downgrade to 2000 enterprise http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=54&messageid=363888

i contacted microsoft but their response was not exactly crystal-clear. after a good half hour of back & forth between me & his colleagues, the gentleman i spoke to eventually concluded that we must indeed purchase 2005 enterprise to downgrade to 2000 enterprise.

i pointed out that being a small business, this is overkill for our needs and we would effectively be paying $20k for a 6-7 year-old product just for its increased memory usage which is a function provided by purchase of 2005 standard ($6k). he acknowledged this was something of an anomaly but could only comment based on the info he had at hand.

i'm curious to know if anyone else has any info that might support or contradict this?

rob

Carl Rimmer SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4068 More actions · Answer 4

Steve,

I was particularly interested to read what you had to say about the 4 CPU limit into 2005. I was attempting to find out last week whether or not you could buy 4 Quad Core processors and actually use the full 16 processors available or wheteher you were limited to only using 4 available processors?

Regards

Carl

RichB SSCrazy Eights Points: 9651 More actions · Answer 5

Nice summary - perhaps I could suggest a follow on article for Embarrassing Hazards Involved in Staged Migration to 2005?

Eg)

Logshipping not working from 2000 to 2005 or vv.

Reporting Services on Workgroup Edition not supporting databases on a different server

etc

George H. SSCommitted Points: 1522 More actions · Answer 6

Great article! I've been looking for a concise, authoritative account of this exact topic. I am looking forward to your next installment. Keep up the good work!

Jay R. Wren SSC Enthusiast Points: 108 More actions · Answer 7

Don't forget changes to the SQL itself. SQL Server finally supports MINUS/EXCEPT. For those of us who think in terms of sets, this has been a long time coming.

I realize the article was admin centric instead of programmer centric, but this is huge IMO.

Greg Wilson-404807 SSC Eights! Points: 906 More actions · Answer 8

I enjoyed this article a lot, because I happen to be getting ready to present a 2-hour bit to a group of 20 enterprise DBAs on exactly this topic. I cover most of what you talk about, but I was surprised that you didn't mention service broker and SQLCLR from a DBAs perspective. While they may not need to know how to program them for their DBA work, they need to know the basics of how to deploy them and what to do when developers ask them to be used.

Warm Regards,Greg Wilsonsolidrockstable.com

Mark Yelton SSCommitted Points: 1520 More actions · Answer 9

Good article Steve, your research always helps the rest of us.

Mark

Anders Pedersen SSChampion Points: 11410 More actions · Answer 10

Good write up.

Carl, see the discussion in this thread:

http://www.sqlservercentral.com/forums/shwmessage.aspx?forumid=146&messageid=363960

Carl Rimmer SSCarpal Tunnel Points: 4068 More actions · Answer 11

Carl Rimmer

SSCarpal Tunnel

Points: 4068

May 15, 2007 at 9:42 am

#706556

Thanks Anders.

Ken Shapley SSC-Addicted Points: 458 More actions · Answer 12

Ken Shapley

SSC-Addicted

Points: 458

May 15, 2007 at 11:59 am

#706590

Partioning?

Andy Gray-430182 SSC Enthusiast Points: 122 More actions · Answer 13

I believe that the key is the number of sockets on the motherboard, not the number of processing cores. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that you could, indeed, get full use out of all 16 cores in a 4 quad-core processor machine.

At that point it's probably wise to start fiddling with max degrees of parallelism at times, too. I just benefitted from Option(maxdop = 1) on a very processor-intensive process whose total runtime didn't matter as much as the ability to have the server devote a processor to it and leave everything else usable by other processes during work hours.

On topic: Another good article, Steve! I was a little surprised not to see CLR mentioned, but again, it was an administration-centric article, so it was not unreasonable to leave it out. Well done as always.

Andy

Wayne West SSC-Insane Points: 22586 More actions · Answer 14

Search around online, you should still be able to buy 2K Enterprise. I found one price shop page that has it with 25 CALs for about $3300. Are CALs different between Enterprise and Standard? I'm not sure on that one.

http://www.nextag.com/Microsoft-SQL-SERVER-2000-2302484/prices-html

-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]