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 12345»»»

Adoption Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Tuesday, March 3, 2009 8:06 PM


SSC-Dedicated

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

Group: Administrators
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:53 PM
Points: 33,063, Visits: 15,179
Comments posted to this topic are about the item Adoption






Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest

Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
Post #667802
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 4:56 AM
SSC-Addicted

SSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-AddictedSSC-Addicted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, July 2, 2014 7:58 AM
Points: 471, Visits: 839
Personally I am typically an early adopter. But that is for me, at home, where if i don't get email or do my frivolous things, no money is lost. Corporately I prefer to wait a bit. Not necessarily for SP1 or SP2 but for the initial kinks of upgrading to come to the surface. A lot of this has been alleviated with the method of letting release candidates out to the public in several phases.

The bigger issue I face is customers who want to upgrade however can't because the underlying application is not ready for it yet. It can be quite the pickle sometimes. For example one customer is facing memory contention and not because the server lacks but because SQL Server 2000 std does. Logically they would just upgrade to SQL Server 2008 except for the fact that the application version they are running only supports 2000 or 2005. So we go with 2005. Their hardware is slated for replacement this fall and not a moment sooner. If they are replacing the hardware why not just do an application upgrade to leverage 2008 and install 2008 thus giving them a full life cycle on the hardware without interruption. So much plays into it and it can sometimes be hard to empower the customers to make a decision at all because of the complexity of the situations or their lack of understanding.
Post #668016
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:05 AM


SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 4:53 AM
Points: 2,366, Visits: 1,844
I have a project in SQL 2008 to take advantage of spatial data. All the rest of the projects are in SQL 2005.

Projects running on older version of SQL take time to upgrade to the next version of SQL but the ones developed from the scratch are more likely to be in latest SQL version.


"Keep Trying"
Post #668023
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 5:19 AM
Valued Member

Valued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued MemberValued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, May 18, 2012 10:15 AM
Points: 52, Visits: 55
We currently have no systems running SQL 2008. We have a couple 2000 instances, but mostly 2005. We run into two problems as far as upgrading to 2008. Primarily it is that the vendor purchased software that we have is not supported on 2008. Second is budget factors in the sense that newer hardware costs we would have are not typically available in our budget.

As far as whether to upgrade or not I am on the fence. It would be nice to have the latest software and hardware, but costs often prohibit that. The other side is that if your program is functioning well and has been for years, what advantages does one get from simply upgrading the DB.

At the rate we are going, I likely won't see a 2008 installation until well after the next version would be released.

Mark
Post #668037
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:00 AM


SSC Rookie

SSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC RookieSSC Rookie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Monday, July 21, 2014 10:38 AM
Points: 34, Visits: 186
Steve -

I agree that Microsoft should adopt a release cycle of ~24-48 months. This encourages innovation as well as adoption. We have a large number of SQL Server DBs here and we have been actively testing SQL Server 2008 for eventual adoption into production. Our test/production cycle here is 6 month long so it takes a little while for us, but we try. :)

... Jerry
Post #668072
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:03 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:11 PM
Points: 15,517, Visits: 27,898
In production we have two or three 2005 servers and already two 2008 servers. The other 30 are 2000. We're starting the process of migrating off the 2000 to 2008. It looks like, by and large, 2005 is going to get bypassed at this point. Still, we jump on the new versions as they come out, but that doesn't mean the entire infrastructure moves.

----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #668074
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:06 AM
SSC-Enthusiastic

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

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 7:43 AM
Points: 184, Visits: 1,007
Finally got the DVD's for SQL Server 2008 a month ago and installed it on a LAB Server.

We are still pushing applications to migrate to SQL Server 2005 which is part of a server consolidation project. At the pace we are going, I am tempted to wait for the next release of SQL Server instead of trying upgrade everyone again so soon to SQL Server 2008.

There are other factors that will affect this decision such as application database requirements, but at the present we are still a Windows XP shop with 1000's of PC's. If the server team starts deploying windows 2008 instead of 2003, I might consider SQL 2008.

For now it's not happening.



David Bird

My PC Quick Reference Guide
Post #668080
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:32 AM
Forum Newbie

Forum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum NewbieForum Newbie

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, March 4, 2009 8:50 AM
Points: 1, Visits: 7
Moved from SQL 2000 to 2005 less than two years ago. I am not an early adopter because I want to keep my job. As for moving to 2008 I really need to see what features have been added/improved that I can make use of. If there are none then I won't waste the money just to have Microsoft's latest version.
Post #668111
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:34 AM
Ten Centuries

Ten CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen CenturiesTen Centuries

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 1:39 AM
Points: 1,026, Visits: 1,097
For me, a new release of MS SQL Server every 24 months is far too frequent. As already mentioned in this thread, upgrading from 2000 to 2008 is entirely possible, and at this moment in time, probably sensible.

So this gives us a real-world upgrade period of 96 months! Not what Microsoft would like to hear. Even without the problems of vendors not supporting the latest releases, the main question for a business is: does it work at the moment, and what improvements will we see if we upgrade?

Both 2000 and 2005 have proven themselves to be good, solid, reliable database engines. Why upgrade? Or, alternatively, why spend time and money upgrading?

Admittedly the latest version has better management tools, but nothing that fundamentally improves the DB engine.

Andy
Post #668113
Posted Wednesday, March 4, 2009 6:45 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Friday, July 25, 2014 3:11 PM
Points: 15,517, Visits: 27,898
One of the toughest things is learning the new technology. It's hard to pick up on all the new functionality available. I'm still floundering with MERGE in TSQL and I'm starting a major research project on spatial data, but I know there's other parts of 2005 that I haven't mastered and I'm implementing 2008. 2010.... blarf!

----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #668136
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase 12345»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse