Is It Worth Upgrading to SQL Server 2008

  • SQL Server 2005 SP3 will be here before the end of the year.

    BI Guy

  • maneffa (10/23/2008)

    cmille19 (10/22/2008)

    Thanks for the updated info, I wasn't aware R2 changed the max memory. Do you know if clustering is supported in Windows 2003 R2 Standard? It wasn't in Windows 2003 Standard. Due to the old 4 GB limit requirement and clustering I've always went with Windows 2003 Enterprise, but now I may re-think that decision.

    I'm sorry but I don't know, the documentation is certainly not clear cut.


    After a little research here's what I found on Windows 2003 Standard memory and clustering support:

    Windows 2003 standard x64 supports 32GB memory – no R2 needed:

    Clustering is only supported in Enterprise and Datacenter editions of Windows:


    "Server clusters overview

    Updated: April 10, 2006

    Server clusters overview

    A server cluster is a group of independent computer systems, known as nodes, working together as a single system to ensure that critical applications and resources remain available to clients. These nodes must be running Microsoft® Windows Server™ 2003, Enterprise Edition or Microsoft® Windows Server™ 2003, Datacenter Edition.


    Only computers running Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition or Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition can be cluster nodes. "

  • Let us for a moment keep aside features that are not there in SQL server 2008 that will encourage us to upgrade SQL Server 2000 / SQL Server 2005 standard editions to SQL Server 2008 Standard Editions, but of those new features that have been provided in SQL server 2005 Standard editions except a few like unlimited RAM / Clustering (which DBA's can control), how many of those features are being used.. Like Snapshot Isolation level and read committed isolation level. We have serious issues with blocking and in SQL Server 2005 but still we are facing hard time convincing to move to snapshot isolation level. We have lot of features but only couple of them are being used.

  • The link in this article, to the "official" list of differences between 2005 and 2008, is broken. Is a corrected link available?

  • The article was mainly about standard edition.

    The killer feature for enterprise users is the ability to switch partitions on replicated tables. This means that with careful design the purge of millions of records can be achieved in the blink of an eye without thrashing the disks and transaction log.

  • I think with R2 just around the cormer, I'd wait for the first SP for that before upgrading. After all, will Microsoft release SPs and CUs for non R2 SQL Server 2008?

  • You can download addons that provide intelisense for 2000 and 2005.

  • SQL 2005 was a vehicle for Microsoft to sell its Visual Studio product, nothing more. SQL 2000 was a very good version.

    Kind regards,


  • allen-623417 (10/21/2008)

    With our new server we installed SQL Server 2008 Standard.

    I haven't even scratched the surface of it's features (SSIS, etc) but I LOVE the InteliSense that SQL Server 2008 has.

    It is now painful to switch back to 2000 or even 2005 because I've gotten spoiled with 08's InteliSense.

    You only need install the SQL 2008 Express management tools to get the intellisense deatures in SSMS. Theres no need to upgrade databases. It works on any database.

  • 2008 includes spatial datatypes and queries - which alone are worth the switch if you have any mapping databases or store locations with data. You can use the new Bing map service API to utilize that spatial data.

  • for the projects i worked on the filestream data was a huge win. I reaaaallly want to start messing around with spatial data, but so far i haven't had a reason to use it

  • I'm not sure I'd agree that SS2K5 was built to sell VS. It was a good product, groundbreaking for SQL Server in terms of growing the product. Adding in Service Broker, Database Mail, lots of features that had SQL 2000 falling behind other platforms.

  • FYI for reference, another article that basically says the same thing, 2000 to 2008 or 2005 to 2008 Enterprise is worth it: Review: SQL Server 2008

  • Interesting (amd unsurprising) comments from all and we currently run SQL Server 2000 in the main but use 2005 for a single instance running SSSI and SSRS.

    Does any one have any experience in running integration services and reporting services under 2005 and upgrading to 2008 - are there bigger benefits here - I wonder as these 'extensions' do appear to be 'bolt-ons' to the core 2005 products and we are led to believe there is better functionality in the 2008 versions.

    we will evaluate anyway (that is our plan) but any comments from hose with the experience would be most welcome.

    Apologies of this is posted in the wrong discussion!

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 89 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply