November 11, 2015 at 10:24 am
Gary Varga (11/11/2015)
I am currently working on an Oracle database that I believe was migrated from a hierarchical database circa '94. No later but possibly earlier.
Where shall we send condolences cards? 😀
-----
[font="Arial"]Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves or we know where we can find information upon it. --Samuel Johnson[/font]
November 11, 2015 at 10:49 am
Wayne West (11/11/2015)
Gary Varga (11/11/2015)
I am currently working on an Oracle database that I believe was migrated from a hierarchical database circa '94. No later but possibly earlier.Where shall we send condolences cards? 😀
I'd prefer drowning my sorrows with you guys - even if I am buying!!! :crying:
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
October 11, 2019 at 7:48 am
Wow,
I just came off the back of speaking at data relay in Nottingham on this topic
we've been in business since 1851 (ok it was a bookshop back then) and most of our systems started when we realised fax machines couldn't cut it
our stock management system is easily 20 years old and still an ms access front end with a sql 2016 backend that is coded to non normalised (and hence poor performing, riddled with functions, cursors and triggers) designs by business experts rather than developers who know "mr boyce and mr codd" and their 3nf principle.
I think the main point when dealing with any system that is this old, is that It's has been invested in so many times that it's really hard to put away the old junk and accept that hiring 30 support engineers to deal with defects rather than bite the bullet and replace it is a really silly idea.
I constantly hear - " we need to rewrite X" followed by a cynical "yeah like that will ever happen" 🙂
MVDBA
October 11, 2019 at 10:40 am
"I was reading a post from someone recently where they noted that they didn't worry to much about the architecture of the system since it wouldn't likely last very long."
This is a typical self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously a system with better architecture is going to be a better investment because it will lend itself better to ongoing modification and will require less maintenance effort to be adapted to changing needs. If systems architects are truly talented, they will anticipate potential future needs and design systems that are simple, complete, and flexible.
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
October 11, 2019 at 10:59 am
That wouldn't be Axxia by any chance would it? Understand if you don't want to say.
[Edit] this was supposed to be in reply to a post by Dervey from 2015, but ended up right at the bottom.
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. When we enquire into any subject, the first thing we have to do is to know what books have treated of it. This leads us to look at catalogues, and at the backs of books in libraries."
— Samuel Johnson
I wonder, would the great Samuel Johnson have replaced that with "GIYF" now?
October 11, 2019 at 11:03 am
That wouldn't be Axxia by any chance would it? Understand if you don't want to say.
"Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. When we enquire into any subject, the first thing we have to do is to know what books have treated of it. This leads us to look at catalogues, and at the backs of books in libraries."
— Samuel Johnson
I wonder, would the great Samuel Johnson have replaced that with "GIYF" now?
October 11, 2019 at 12:52 pm
We're still using an app written in MS-Access in 2002 as our main database. 100k lines of code, and its only now that we've started hitting the wall of Access capability. 2GB of data, 35+ simultaneous users, and it's STILL capable of giving near sub-second response times for most non-reports, and less than 10 seconds for almost all the reports.
I'm in the process of finishing the release candidate for its successor, written in .NET and SQL Server. Roughly equivalent functionality, with the two languages about equally split, and 700k lines of code. 🙂
Of course the SQL Server version will scale massively larger, but will do pretty much the same thing, just prettier (and far more secure, of course). But 7 times larger...
Access gets a lot of hate, but if the applications are architected correctly it's still a formidable development system. And absolutely beats the pants off .NET/SQL Server for development speed.
October 11, 2019 at 2:06 pm
If it wasn't for MS Access I probably wouldn't be able to program.
I still run a couple of access databases based on Access 2003 performance is generally still an order better than web apps. They are super rich internal enterprise systems that have very few users.
I now design systems with ASP.NET and SQL Azure, distribution through the browser is just too much of an advantage.
I still miss the super rich master detail forms / the nice schema binding diagram that actually draws the lines against the fields within the tables / project files that take seconds to upgrade to latest version and a report designer that works miles better than anything else I've ever come across.
I still use ms access for ETL projects against oracle postgres or sql azure and would recommend it over excel every day of the week.
October 11, 2019 at 2:17 pm
Actually the very first SQL Server system I ever installed in 1996 which was 6.0. It is now running on SQL 2014.
October 11, 2019 at 2:35 pm
Our oldest database currently in production is about 30 years old. It was originally running on Informix in the 90s and was ported to SQL in the early 2000s - currently running on SQL 2012. A replacement for that application is (finally) in development.
We do have an old Access database that we use for software requirements gathering - it originated in the mid-80s.
October 11, 2019 at 3:03 pm
You've hit on a great case for virtualization but also makes me wonder if code is getting worse over time because hardware has become so inexpensive.
October 11, 2019 at 3:30 pm
You've hit on a great case for virtualization but also makes me wonder if code is getting worse over time because hardware has become so inexpensive.
I believe this is exactly what has occurred over the years. When I started developing financial systems in assembler language on a 32k hard memory system with a 6k OS, there was no choice but to have good coders develop good code. And I think it is probably much easier now to get funds for hardware than it is for good developers.
Rick
Disaster Recovery = Backup ( Backup ( Your Backup ) )
October 11, 2019 at 7:54 pm
I know this 5 years old but if Steves going to resurrect it, I'll update it. I still have working SQL 2000 databases as old as 17-Dec-2002. Next year it'll be old enough to vote! 🙂
October 11, 2019 at 8:58 pm
We're still using an app written in MS-Access in 2002 as our main database. 100k lines of code, and its only now that we've started hitting the wall of Access capability. 2GB of data, 35+ simultaneous users, and it's STILL capable of giving near sub-second response times for most non-reports, and less than 10 seconds for almost all the reports.
I'm in the process of finishing the release candidate for its successor, written in .NET and SQL Server. Roughly equivalent functionality, with the two languages about equally split, and 700k lines of code. 🙂
Of course the SQL Server version will scale massively larger, but will do pretty much the same thing, just prettier (and far more secure, of course). But 7 times larger...
Access gets a lot of hate, but if the applications are architected correctly it's still a formidable development system. And absolutely beats the pants off .NET/SQL Server for development speed.
I've had two conversations today that touched on this.
One centred on a much hated (in IT) MS Access 97 app fronting a SQL Server DB. Its users loved it for its ease of use and that, as non-techies, it let them get real value out of the data. If you ripped it out then a substantial number of critical business processes would simply cease. Attempts to replace it with something more up-to-date had not won over hearts and minds of the people who actually used the system on a day to day basis.
Various flashy demos of BI Visualisation tools may have won over management but clunky old Access did exactly what the people who actually DO STUFF needed.
The 2nd conversation is for a system that people have been trying to kill for well over a decade. Starved of attention, funds and suitable hardware it survived and thrived. In later years it has survived a decommissioning project that had active and engaged senior stakeholders. It is a running battle to stop newer systems hooking into it. I have a nagging thought in my mind that it might well be the most successful application that the organisation has ever written. If you subscribe to Darwinism then this is something that has survived and thrived passive neglect and determined malice. It is the software of evolutionary success. No one in IT would countenance the thought that the system has anything to do with intelligent design!
I know its weaknesses and how it limits the organisation and yet.....part of me keeps coming back to its longevity despite everything. Perhaps there is a lot to be learned about it!
October 11, 2019 at 9:37 pm
I have been working at the same place for 14 years and many of the systems we still use predate me. One of our critical systems running on Informix will celebrate its 20th birthday in November.
We aren't very good at decluttering so data in the old systems ends up being updated by new applications so we have multiple copies of the same data scattered around various databases and technologies.
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 61 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply