SQL Clone
SQLServerCentral is supported by Redgate
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 


Choose: SQL 2012 Enterprise or SQL 2016 Standard


Choose: SQL 2012 Enterprise or SQL 2016 Standard

Author
Message
ReReplaced
ReReplaced
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 528 Visits: 235
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).
GilaMonster
GilaMonster
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)SSC Guru (896K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 896156 Visits: 48655
Why is SQL 2016 Enterprise not an option?

SQL 2012 is out of support, so just from that, it's a sub-par choice.

Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability

We walk in the dark places no others will enter
We stand on the bridge and no one may pass


arr.nagaraj
arr.nagaraj
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)SSCertifiable (6K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 5988 Visits: 1638
ReReplaced - Friday, December 22, 2017 7:35 PM
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).

My vote would always be for the latest version simply because you get to use much better features and a lot more powerful database engine. So, I would suggest, go for SQL 2016 ( or if possible SQL 2017 as its already on GA).
Need to be just aware that standard edition comes with resource limitations ( Max: 128 GB RAM, 24 core processor ).

Main item to think about is if the application would support SQL 2016 or SQL 2017.


Regards,
Raj

http://Strictlysql.blogspot.com
Eirikur Eiriksson
Eirikur Eiriksson
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)SSC Guru (156K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 156826 Visits: 23035
ReReplaced - Friday, December 22, 2017 7:35 PM
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).

Are those actual transactions or technical transactions?
What hardware are you on?
Cool

Subramaniam Chandrasekar
Subramaniam Chandrasekar
Hall of Fame
Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)Hall of Fame (3.4K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 3440 Visits: 531
ReReplaced - Friday, December 22, 2017 7:35 PM
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).

I think it'll be based on your requirement, some of the features of SQL 2016 are,
1) In memory tables
2) Update able column store indexes
3) High number of Always ON secondaries
4) High size of buffer
5) Temporal tables support ( alternative for SCD) and many more...

If your project requirements are not requiring / considering the above factors, then you can proceed with SQL 2012 enterprise edition. Please wait for others suggestion as well...

Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)SSC Guru (594K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 594899 Visits: 21010
Hardware? 2016 standard has some limits.

Follow me on Twitter: @way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
ReReplaced
ReReplaced
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 528 Visits: 235
GilaMonster - Saturday, December 23, 2017 4:09 AM
Why is SQL 2016 Enterprise not an option?

SQL 2012 is out of support, so just from that, it's a sub-par choice.

Hi Gail,
That's a valid point I should pay attention to - with a few 2005 and a raft of 2008 r2's to deal with it is easy to forget 2012's light is low too. I've been told the SQL 2016 standard licenses have already been purchased, just waiting to be set up/configured - or as another post suggests I'd be advising 2017 purchases.

ReReplaced
ReReplaced
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 528 Visits: 235
arr.nagaraj - Saturday, December 23, 2017 7:07 AM
ReReplaced - Friday, December 22, 2017 7:35 PM
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).

My vote would always be for the latest version simply because you get to use much better features and a lot more powerful database engine. So, I would suggest, go for SQL 2016 ( or if possible SQL 2017 as its already on GA).
Need to be just aware that standard edition comes with resource limitations ( Max: 128 GB RAM, 24 core processor ).

Main item to think about is if the application would support SQL 2016 or SQL 2017.


Great point on the 2017 GA. I've been told the 2016 licenses have already been purchased, but if we are doing this it's worth the ask if 2017 is an option.
ReReplaced
ReReplaced
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (528 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 528 Visits: 235
Eirikur Eiriksson - Saturday, December 23, 2017 8:43 AM
ReReplaced - Friday, December 22, 2017 7:35 PM
That's the choice I've been given. 1 month into work at a small business with 1 well used 2008 r2 SQL Server (average 9k transactions/sec. with sustained periods of 20K mainly due to BizTalk EDI. 3 db's around 100 GB, 12 smaller ones, Hyper V environment not efficiently configured (1 lun to rule them all)

Which would you choose? What other questions would you ask before deciding? (we use SQL server very generically).

Are those actual transactions or technical transactions?
What hardware are you on?
Cool

when we are hovering around 8K transactions, I want to believe many of those are technical transactions, but have not had time to dig into the details of the transactions.

Go


Permissions

You can't post new topics.
You can't post topic replies.
You can't post new polls.
You can't post replies to polls.
You can't edit your own topics.
You can't delete your own topics.
You can't edit other topics.
You can't delete other topics.
You can't edit your own posts.
You can't edit other posts.
You can't delete your own posts.
You can't delete other posts.
You can't post events.
You can't edit your own events.
You can't edit other events.
You can't delete your own events.
You can't delete other events.
You can't send private messages.
You can't send emails.
You can read topics.
You can't vote in polls.
You can't upload attachments.
You can download attachments.
You can't post HTML code.
You can't edit HTML code.
You can't post IFCode.
You can't post JavaScript.
You can post emoticons.
You can't post or upload images.

Select a forum








































































































































































SQLServerCentral


Search