August 5, 2008 at 1:47 pm
We have a production 2000 server that is badly in need of an upgrade which we are working on now. I would love to go directly to 2008 now but here lies the challenge: our primary vendor application is not fully certified to run with 2005 (although they will support it as long as I run the database in mode 80).
I have asked the local user group here in Dallas what they would recommend and unanimously they recommend moving to 2008, but keeping the database in mode 80. I'm all for it but would like more feedback from everyone here. The vendor is working on certifying for mode 90 so I guess I could make that change when they finalize their certification process.
What would you recommend?
August 5, 2008 at 3:56 pm
i would go the SQL2005 route first, by that time SQL2008 will be stable and become a viable upgrade platform
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 5, 2008 at 4:50 pm
You said that the vendor will support 2005 if the database is in mode 80, but you didn't say if they would support 2008 in mode 80?
Also, 2008 is not even officially released yet. No One has any idea what its reliability is going to be yet. In my experience, SQL 2005 with up-to-date service packs is very reliable.
[font="Times New Roman"]-- RBarryYoung[/font], [font="Times New Roman"] (302)375-0451[/font] blog: MovingSQL.com, Twitter: @RBarryYoung[font="Arial Black"]
Proactive Performance Solutions, Inc. [/font][font="Verdana"] "Performance is our middle name."[/font]
August 6, 2008 at 7:03 am
rbarryyoung (8/5/2008)
You said that the vendor will support 2005 if the database is in mode 80, but you didn't say if they would support 2008 in mode 80?Also, 2008 is not even officially released yet. No One has any idea what its reliability is going to be yet. In my experience, SQL 2005 with up-to-date service packs is very reliable.
They haven't said either way with 2008, officially. When I attended their conference in May, the person I spoke with said they typically stay one version behind. I have some opinions here but I'll refrain.
As far as timeframe, we won't be doing any upgrades until early October is my best guess. By then, I'm sure we'll have plenty of reliability data. My question was more to ask if 2008 will work with a mode 80 database just as 2005 will? If it isn't a foolish move to push, I would rather jump all the way to 2008 so I don't have to worry about complete upgrades for several years.
August 6, 2008 at 7:06 am
Perry Whittle (8/5/2008)
i would go the SQL2005 route first, by that time SQL2008 will be stable and become a viable upgrade platform
If we start with 2005, which will be on a clean OS, new hardware, etc., would you then do an in-place upgrade to 2008 in a few months once 2008 has proven itself or just wait until main stream support for 2005 ends and then do a side-by-side upgrade to new hardware (presumably in 3-4 years)?
August 6, 2008 at 7:23 am
I have yet another question for your consideration. Our new VP wants to put SQL Server into a VM when we do the upgrade. I'm a little hesitant but between the discussions here not too long ago and an article in SQL Server Magazine in July, I'm almost convinced it could work.
Our primary application database is currently 50GB and will have approximately 7GB of annual growth based on current usage. We have no more than 250 users and of those, only about 100 use it heavily. Performance on a dedicated box is adequate and I know could be improved with more memory since it only has 4GB.
I'm leaning on the side of moving forward with virtualization at this point. It will still have a "dedicated" machine but will operate in a VM so it can easily be moved to new hardware when the time comes without having to reinstall the OS and SQL from scratch.
With that little vague bit of data, would you virtualize or not?
August 6, 2008 at 10:34 am
we have around 8 SQL VM's all running fine. Our storage is SAN based which helps. Which virtualisation platform do you intend to use?
I would go clean install for SQL2005 and then when you go to SQL 2008 do a clean install again
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 6, 2008 at 10:34 am
we have around 8 SQL VM's all running fine. Our storage is SAN based which helps. Which virtualisation platform do you intend to use?
I would go clean install for SQL2005 and then when you go to SQL 2008 do a clean install again
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 6, 2008 at 10:38 am
Based on very preliminary conversations, it sounds like we'll be going with ESX although our Network Admin would prefer Hyper-V.
August 6, 2008 at 2:33 pm
jim.powers (8/6/2008)
although our Network Admin would prefer Hyper-V.
why? what is their reason for choosing this over ESX?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Ya can't make an omelette without breaking just a few eggs" 😉
August 7, 2008 at 7:15 am
I think cost, mostly, is what is driving his decision. Plus, he just doesn't have time to manage yet another resource that he will have to learn.
August 7, 2008 at 11:53 pm
i am mainting nearly 10 virtual machines running SQL Server 2005. using virtual server 2005 R2 and pretyy happy with it.
easy to manage and haven't felt any issues with it so far.
Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply