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»»»

Don't Upgrade to SQL Server 2005 Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Thursday, July 5, 2007 5:25 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:58 PM
Points: 31,075, Visits: 15,519
Comments posted here are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/3094.asp






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #379392
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007 9:55 PM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:02 AM
Points: 85, Visits: 33

A strong second on that recommendation to hold out till 2008.

My only disagreement with anything Steve wrote is regarding the stability of SQL Server 2005. Yes, the data engine of 2005 is surely stable, but the development integration -- where they seemed to focus -- is less reliable than it should be given the beta cycles they went through. The best example of this is the horrendous management tool interfaces, which on many development boxes were seriously hamstrung. And requiring a development tool upgrade to VS 2005 just to get at some features was a problem in terms of deployment, since VS 2005 was not backward compatible. It produced an added layer of swkward management, and that affecte dproductivity.

I'm not saying SQL Server 2005 was a bad release, though, just that when you analyse their development process, beta cycles, and so forth, it just wasn't really a solid release. The same is true of VS 2005, which wasn't really usable in many scenarios until SP1.

My biggest fear for 2008 is that a trio of upgrades will create  a slew of isolated platform bugs, and an unpleasant batch of integration-bugs. MS needs to consider slowing down and committing to point releases and optimisation for a few years after 2008, or it will cut their bottom line.

Post #380528
Posted Tuesday, July 10, 2007 11:16 PM
SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:26 AM
Points: 38, Visits: 11
While I don't necessarily disagree with anything in the article, he has provided no concrete reasons as to why you shouldn't upgrade - only opinions and speculation.

Personally, we won't be upgrading to 2005 but will rather skip to 2008 but that's merely due to 2008 being released within our upgrade time frame.
Post #380538
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 2:35 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, December 4, 2012 10:37 AM
Points: 274, Visits: 96
Sounds compelling to me, esp. the '2 versions to get it right' argument (6/6.5, 7/2000). Also I can now say that leaving most of our Servers on 2000 was part of a clever strategic plan rather than lethargy and a reluctance to work weekends!
Post #380577
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 3:32 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, October 12, 2007 2:09 AM
Points: 7, Visits: 2

Well,Nobody talked here about the costs.This is another reason for companies not upgrading now to another SQL release.

But anyway,i believe there's also a need to keep the technological wakefulness so,not migrating to SQL2K5 might also be a problem if you do not have an efficient test environment.

The hen and egg issue?

Post #380591
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:00 AM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:58 PM
Points: 31,075, Visits: 15,519
I don't have any great "concrete" reasons and even if I did, they would apply to me, not to your individual systems. It's just that as a general rule, I think that the pairs of releases, which you could argue are SQL Server 9.0 and 9.5, you'd be better off with the new version.

My guess is that there is a team working on SS2K8 and a separate team doing patches/SPs for SS2K5. Some of the stuff that gets fixed moves over to SS2K8, but I'd agree that it's probably a stability v9.5, but with new features, like the policy based management, it's pushed as a v10.







Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #380605
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5:48 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:50 AM
Points: 1,285, Visits: 2,828

 We have only one SQL 2005 install here and about 20 servers on 2000. I have been disappointed in several bugs or things broken by SP1 and SP2 and some of the Ent. manager ease of use things for daily DBA tasks are gone or horribly rewritten in Mgt Studio. Mgt. Studio is TOO SLOW. I am very disappointed on how difficult it is to simply set up a job to bring data into a SQL Server table from another RDBMS. DTS was not the greatest but it was simple to use.

We are in a budget crunch here and I cannot goto Management and ask for $250,000k +  to upgrade all of our SQL Servers to 2005 and then say oh, next March there will be a new version and we have to rebuy SQL Server all over again.




Post #380625
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:02 AM
SSC Journeyman

SSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC JourneymanSSC Journeyman

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Saturday, June 28, 2014 8:14 AM
Points: 89, Visits: 260

Well, I think it is horses for courses. And I get the impressions Steve does intend that as well. Some of the new things in SQL 2005, however, may mean you don't want to wait (.. or didn't wait, as in our case - we've been on SQL 2005 since... 2005). That said, we also have several SQL 2000 servers, and some 7's as well. Upgrade where you need to, for good reasons, is my opinion.

Some of the performance and stability issues we (by we, I mean our core client) had was around a massive caching system that aggregates and presents data from several hundred SQL servers, and then makes this available to our customers (somewhere in the order of 500 million to 750 million 'tuples'). Towards the 2nd half of 2006, the SQL 2000 DB cluster had frequent problems - to the level that the cluster was failed over on a near-daily basis. Now I am sure many people will think that this is due to bad code, I should point out that what was done here was reviewed by MS, and was considered by Ms as a very good, innovative solution to a very challenging problem. After upgrading from SQL2000 to SQL2005 (with virtually no code changes), this server now runs at an average CPU of around 10% and has not needed a fail-over in 9 months.

Not everyone will have these needs, but the performance improvement can be significant, as can the 24x7 enhancements.

I should also say that SQL 2005 is not the panacaea for all SQL problem, either. In some areas, I'm not sure it is that stable a product - SQL 2005 SP2 and SP2a debacle a prime candidate. We still have assertion errors on 1 of our (5) live SQL 2005 server clusters, and have had them for 2 weeks now... we are on build 3175 with no resolution. Fortunately, is doesn't appear to have an impact (yet) on our service, but it is very concernign to see 80-100 assertion errors a day, on a server.

Post #380630
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:50 AM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, June 9, 2014 6:02 AM
Points: 2,674, Visits: 697

Hmmm .. I'm not sure I agree, the biggest advantage of sql2005 is 64bit and I'd hope we were all heading this way very quickly - I accept I tend to work in large companies who benefit from such advances.

There's just so many advantages with sql2005, security, tuning, analysis - waiting until sql 2008 would likely mean another 18-24 months, as I'm sure most would wait for sp1 before an upgrade ??? , by then you'll be running on 9 year old technology.



The GrumpyOldDBA
www.grumpyolddba.co.uk
http://sqlblogcasts.com/blogs/grumpyolddba/
Post #380648
Posted Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:56 AM


Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 6:50 AM
Points: 1,285, Visits: 2,828
We have a mixture of high end, medium and very tiny dbs here on 2000. The cost to upgrade is astronomical for us being in a budget crunch. When we upgrade we typically get new hardware too so when we switch it all out our fallback would be to simply shutdown new server and power up the old one. Considering an upgrade to 2005 includes new hardware and with 2008 around the corner I cannot sell an almost half a million bucks to upgrade them all even with some consolidation in a budget crunch year especially when i tell them next year there will be a new release.


Post #380650
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 1234»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse