<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" target="_blank"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15220&wd=468&ht=60&pair=as" alt="i" width="468" height="60"/></a>
Log in
::
Register
::
Not logged in
Home
Tags
Articles
Editorials
Stairways
Forums
Scripts
Videos
Blogs
QotD
Books
Ask SSC
SQL Jobs
Training
Authors
About us
Contact us
Newsletters
Write for us
<a href="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=clk&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" target="_top"><img style="border:0px;" src="http://g.adspeed.net/ad.php?do=img&zid=15491&wd=120&ht=300&pair=as" alt="i" width="120" height="300"/></a>
Recent Posts
Recent Posts
Popular Topics
Popular Topics
Home
Search
Members
Calendar
Who's On
Home
»
Article Discussions
»
Article Discussions by Author
»
Discuss content posted by Nigel Maneffa
»
Is It Worth Upgrading to SQL Server 2008
90 posts, Page 9 of 9
««
«
5
6
7
8
9
Is It Worth Upgrading to SQL Server 2008
Rate Topic
Display Mode
Topic Options
Author
Message
daggles
daggles
Posted Sunday, December 20, 2009 6:20 PM
SSC Rookie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: 2 days ago @ 6:03 PM
Points: 41,
Visits: 172
from planning our company migration from 2k5->2k8, it looks like it will at least be easier than our 2k->2k5 migration
Post #836935
peter-757102
peter-757102
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 12:28 AM
SSC Veteran
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 22, 2013 3:57 AM
Points: 288,
Visits: 1,903
SQLMadness (12/18/2009)
We are currently upgrading from SQL Server 2005 to 2008. One major factor in our decision to upgrade was Filtered Indexes.
Yup, this is the feature I earely want to use and will help a lot in typical applications.
Post #836988
ssaroia
ssaroia
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 9:01 AM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:25 AM
Points: 1,
Visits: 3
Upgrade to 2008 because its code base may be different than 2005 and you will get efficient processing and support from Microsoft. Microsoft may have improved code otherwise they will not ask you to upgrade. Look the way we develope and maintain our applications.
Also if you want to get Enterprise features of 2008 later then you will be ready and there will be no downtime and re-testing.
Post #837257
warefore
warefore
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 9:47 AM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, May 10, 2010 9:18 AM
Points: 1,
Visits: 10
Thx for working thru features vs cost. My client's application has been SQLS/2k for 5 years; no upgrade in the original license AFAIK, so several thou $ to consider SQLS/05, so I had not even looked at it. Now, it seems that if it ain't broke w/SQLS/2k, then "fixing" it w/any subsequent version is not worth the $
... or any more time reading thru 9 pages of comments
.
Post #837335
JStiney
JStiney
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 11:21 AM
SSC Journeyman
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 02, 2012 7:05 AM
Points: 75,
Visits: 446
SQL 2008 Compression and Table Partitioning are not to be underestimated. They have allowed us to easily justify going to Enterprise Edition instead of Standard Edition when we upgrade from SQL 2000.
Our two largest databases BUDGET_HOURLY and BUDGET have been reduced in space used for the data files (mdf files) from 531 Meg to 106 Meg and 239 Meg to 44 Meg. In the BUDGET_HOURLY database all tables were compressed and in BUDGET database we compressed only tables with more than 10 million rows. The table partitioning greatly improved nightly index rebuild times on the largest tables, and the applications is running significantly faster.
SQL Server 2008 is running as a virtual machine under Hiper-V, but on a faster box than the SQL 2000 so comparing run times gets complicated. Suffice to say, we are very happy with the results of moving to SQL 2008 Enterprise on a virtual machine. We really did not think we could justify Enterprise Edition until we did the testing, but we had the machine and we had the time, and the results far exceeded our expectations.
Post #837410
tlampl
tlampl
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 11:31 AM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 8:17 AM
Points: 2,
Visits: 29
John S. meant GB (not meg).
Post #837420
JStiney
JStiney
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 11:39 AM
SSC Journeyman
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, November 02, 2012 7:05 AM
Points: 75,
Visits: 446
There is an error in the database sizes from my previous post, should be Gig not Meg.
(531 Meg to 106 Meg and 239 Meg to 44 Meg) should be (531 Gig to 106 Gig and 239 Gig to 44 Gig).
It would be difficult to justify Enterprise Edition if the databases were that small.
Post #837424
William-317219
William-317219
Posted Monday, January 04, 2010 3:22 PM
Forum Newbie
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:31 AM
Points: 3,
Visits: 4
I imagine most companies will move to SQL Server 2008 because of the off-box key management features the Enterprise version provides. Anyone that has to pass a PCI-DSS audit will definitely appreciate that feature, along with the other encryption artifacts.
Post #841761
L' Eomot Inversé
L' Eomot Inversé
Posted Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:22 PM
SSCertifiable
Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 11:26 AM
Points: 7,112,
Visits: 7,187
Good article, and much interesting discussion.
The outfit I ran until the middle of last year will be going to SQLS 2008, despite it not being much different from 2005 - but won't be going to 2005. Having not yet upgraded from SQLS 2000 Std edition, the upgrade is now going to be direct from SQLS 2000 to SQLS 2008, skipping 2005. Then the app environment will be upgraded to the latest .net version and use WPF and XAML.
Being a small outfit with customers to whom IT is generally regarded as a cost to be minimised meant we didn't have the option of upgrading a customer's SQL servers during the contract or of using a more expensive MS licensing model that would allow the customer's systems to be upgraded for free.
The one after SQLS 2008 will probably be skipped too, for the same reasons - unless there's a real zoom in the target market that allows a lot of growth.
Tom
Is minic a gheibheann béal oscailte dorn dúnta.
Is minig a cheapas beul fosgailte dòrn dùinte.
Post #861366
Steve Jones - SSC Editor
Steve Jones - SSC Editor
Posted Sunday, February 07, 2010 2:00 PM
SSC-Dedicated
Group: Administrators
Last Login: Today @ 11:20 AM
Points: 31,437,
Visits: 13,752
Tom,
I think a lot of companies are looking at things this way. Some may even skip SQL 2008 and R2 from 2005 to jump to 2011 or 2012 since it has not been that long since SS2K8 was released.
Follow me on Twitter:
@way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #861375
« Prev Topic
|
Next Topic »
90 posts, Page 9 of 9
««
«
5
6
7
8
9
Permissions
You
cannot
post new topics.
You
cannot
post topic replies.
You
cannot
post new polls.
You
cannot
post replies to polls.
You
cannot
edit your own topics.
You
cannot
delete your own topics.
You
cannot
edit other topics.
You
cannot
delete other topics.
You
cannot
edit your own posts.
You
cannot
edit other posts.
You
cannot
delete your own posts.
You
cannot
delete other posts.
You
cannot
post events.
You
cannot
edit your own events.
You
cannot
edit other events.
You
cannot
delete your own events.
You
cannot
delete other events.
You
cannot
send private messages.
You
cannot
send emails.
You
may
read topics.
You
cannot
rate topics.
You
cannot
vote within polls.
You
cannot
upload attachments.
You
may
download attachments.
You
cannot
post HTML code.
You
cannot
edit HTML code.
You
cannot
post IFCode.
You
cannot
post JavaScript.
You
cannot
post EmotIcons.
You
cannot
post or upload images.
Copyright © 2002-2013 Simple Talk Publishing. All Rights Reserved.
Privacy Policy.
Terms of Use.
Report Abuse.
