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


SQL Server 2005 Adoption Survey Results


SQL Server 2005 Adoption Survey Results

Author
Message
Steve Jones
Steve Jones
SSC Guru
SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)SSC Guru (139K reputation)

Group: Administrators
Points: 139688 Visits: 19413
Comments posted here are about the content posted at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones/2943.asp

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
EdVassie
EdVassie
SSChampion
SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)SSChampion (13K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 13203 Visits: 3893

I think the most significant quote from the results is

"unless your company is operating at a CMM level 3 or higher -- don't upgrade and simply deploy new systems on 2005."

This is putting some governance metrics around the way shops are organised, and their ability to deliver stable applications. Although CMM certification is still a minority sport, the CMM process is relevant to everyone.

If your organisation cannot match up to CMM level 3, then you should know at the outset that any upgrade to SQL 2005 is almost certainly going to go over time and budget, and will initially give a less stable environment than you have now. Even if you or your management believe the opposite...



Original author: SQL Server FineBuild 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005. 14 Mar 2017: now over 40,000 downloads.Disclaimer: All information provided is a personal opinion that may not match reality.Quote: When I give food to the poor they call me a saint. When I ask why they are poor they call me a communist. - Archbishop Hélder Câmara
Matthew Evans
Matthew Evans
SSC Rookie
SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)SSC Rookie (45 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 45 Visits: 14

We recently upgraded our application to SS 2005.

The process was painless. We simply restored a 2000 backup to 2005, upped the compatibility level, and QA'ed the environment.

After the application went live, we ran a profiler trace, and the Performance Tuning Wizard, reviewed and ran in the recommendations, and immediately we saw a VERY significant performance improvement. We've been through these same hoops on 2000 without the same success...

Oh also, we're running the standard, not enterprise edition. Which is fine for our purposes. So the expense is reduced to around $6k per *physical* cpu.

Upgrading to enterprise, may well have bought extra benefits in terms of the performance boost of seamless (as I understand it) re-use of materialized views. At least Microsoft say it does, but it was outside the upgrade budget.

At this stage, we've seen no issue with stability or anything else..


Andy Warren
Andy Warren
SSC-Insane
SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)SSC-Insane (24K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Points: 24291 Visits: 2746
What changes in 2005 do you attribute the perf increases to?

Andy
SQLAndy - My Blog!
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow me on Twitter
Loner
Loner
SSCertifiable
SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)SSCertifiable (6.2K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 6170 Visits: 3364

We have a brand new project and we develop in SQL Server 2005 since there is nothing to convert, nothing to affect production. So far we haven't used too much of the new features.

As for the old systems, I don't know if we will move to SQL Server 2005.


cutespn
cutespn
Mr or Mrs. 500
Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)Mr or Mrs. 500 (523 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 523 Visits: 20

Thanks Steve, that was good article. Some of the features i really like in SQL Server 2005 are

  • CTEs.
  • XML Support.
  • Try catch blocks
  • Online indexings.
  • CLR integration.

If your application does not need any of the new features of SQL Server 2005, i personally feel there is no need to upgrade.








Regards,
Sudheer

My Blog


steve smith-401573
steve smith-401573
SSCrazy
SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)SSCrazy (2.3K reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 2293 Visits: 744

Wonderful timing! I am preparing a proposal to upgrade from SQL 7 to 2005. I found the survey very helpful, and the citing of the quotes pro/con most helpful. Question: who else has upgraded directly from 7 to 2005? Any 'common' pitfalls to watch out for?

Thanks in advance!


richcoulson
richcoulson
SSC Veteran
SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)SSC Veteran (240 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 240 Visits: 64
We have 7 large sql 2005 servers with 8-16 cores and 32-64 gigs of ram running windows 2003 64 bit. Benefits we have seen are as follows:
- Stability
- Large amounts of native addressable memory.
- Increased server consolidation.
- Optimization times for large complex queries can be 8+ times faster.
- Dynamic management view provides a lot more meaningful information to dba's and developers.
64 bit give us the ability to simultaneously run sql server, analysis services and reporting services on the same server with good performance and stability.
- Useful new features such as CTE's, cross apply with table value functions, etc.
- SSIS has been a mixed bag, but overall an improvement.

We have a large sql server install base with over 800 databases. Our dba's can not wait until all our database are converted to 2005 since they find 2005 more stable and easier to work with. Going back to sql server 2000 would be painful.



Ian Crandell
Ian Crandell
SSC-Addicted
SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)SSC-Addicted (469 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 469 Visits: 1093
I wonder how much the numbers would change if the survey was conducted now (a year later). Also, would the delay in the release of SS 2008 make any difference.

All but one of our client sites are running 2000 with the other one running on 2005 in 2000 compatibility mode. We are currently developing a revamped system with a 2005 DB. However, it will be up to our customers if they want to pay for the updated system. Currently no plans in the works to go to 2008.

Ian.

"If you are going through hell, keep going."
-- Winston Churchill
Brandon Forest
Brandon Forest
Old Hand
Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)Old Hand (399 reputation)

Group: General Forum Members
Points: 399 Visits: 446
Sorry Steve, but when some people have hundreds of SQL 2000 DTS packages, I see SSIS as a driving need to upgrade. I did.

You can run legacy packages just fine until you re-engineer them. If you install the SQL-DTS add-in, then you can even edit legacy DTS packages. Be careful though, installing this component will disable your SQL 2000 Management Studio.

Brandon_Forest@sbcglobla.net
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