Patched!
-
Yesterday Microsoft released Service Pack 2 for SQL Server 2005 after quite a bit of testing. This is important for a few reasons, not the least of which that Vista requires SP2 to run SQL Server. So go ahead and tell your boss he can order you a new machine now with Vista pre-installed! Actually I've got a desktop I've been wanting to set up here and I'm thinking to go ahead and do it with Vista.
Actually I think they read my editorial on licensing this week and decided to go ahead and modify their virtualization licensing. I haven't seen confirmation on the Microsoft site as of yet, but a few places are reporting that if you run Enterprise Edition, you can have unlimited virtual servers.
On one hand I'm disappointed that SP2 has taken so long to get out. We've had people using the Beta and CTP for months, even an article on SP2 and impressions. And I hate to see new features included with the service pack. A new datatype, vardecimal, is included, and that means you definitely need the updated Books Online. At least the "Select All" is back in Reporting Services.
It's good, however, that they spent extra time testing the patch. This is a pretty good sized update and I'd rather have them ensure things work than release it too soon.
I just wish they'd release them more often, every 3 or 4 months, and include what's been tested. What hasn't can wait until next quarter!
-
A new database, vardecimal, is included
Datatype?
When I was at PASS I asked a MS rep about SP2 and they said "March or early April"... so mid-February doesn't seem so late to me.
-
Corrected and thanks for catching that.
It's kind of late given that early betas were out in late summer. That's quite some time. Service Pack 1 was out in < six months after RTM, so this it a much longer timeframe. I still think we'd be better served by quarterly or 2 times a year Service Packs.
-
The disappointing thing about Service Packs in general is that even with months of testing deploying them can be a pain. I wasted several hours today trying to successfully update a developer edition on a sealed, local box, running into all kinds of problems related to configuration. A SP shouldn't require a local install to allow remote connections, and shouldn't be dependent on MS DTC running, or should at least state as much, check to see if it is running, and pause to advise the dependency is failing. In the former case unless remote connections are allowed it refuses to authenticate at one point with no clear explanation of why; and in the latter case, it tranverses the entire SP array and fails in two update sections, rolling back, and leaving a partial component update. Yes, both these issues are minor, but come on, given the time to test, did nobody inside MS ever try to install with local connections restrictions? Did no one think to do a dependency check before the packages try to update? It just seems sloppy, and is probably a direct result of the lag between SP releases and the size of the damn things.
More frustrating though is what you mention, Steve, about new features. It used to be that you didn't have to hit a moving target with enetrprise software like this. I understand MS wanting to give the best available software to the community, but mixing features and fixes is always a risky move, especially when the new features provide a larger footprint for flaws.
Finally, as to Vista...as someone who tested it all along, I would hesitate to recommend anyone install it yet for a work experience. It isn't a bad O/S, but it doesn't really have anything compelling, is a transitional pain in the butt because of a wide number of quirky software issues, and unless you have a fire-breather of a box it runs SQL Server dog-slow. It also doesn't run the development elements of the client tools well, if at all, and requires an inordinate amoung of buggering about to get the UAC feature to behave. Try running Visual Studio 2005 and, while it does run, it is an unproductive experience unless you start shutting off a number of the very features that Vista might provide. About the only place I am recommending it now are home digital photography folks, as it does a much better job handling digital images. For working purposes it is simply not work the current compatibility hassles (when you see the UAC for the fourteenth time in one of MS's own development tools in the space of an hour you reach the point of turning it off permanently); and for many home users it kills far too many toys to be a valid expenditure (my wife can't play several of her favourite games, for example). Vista is a great O/S, but until both the drivers and applications catch up, it has some serious challenges.
-
Now that we know that MS is making decisions based on your editorials we should probably make sure you're fully stocked with a list of improvements that we (the DBA's) need done!
-
It seems that our Dear Friend Frank is frustated with the Microsoft Products.
Well, I would always prefer SQL server SP installation over that of Oracle. I believe it is much more easy. Yes, you may encounter errors depending upon the enviornment, but other installations are a real pain, i believe.
Anyways these are my views. they may differ
-
I will second that Microsoft SQL Server patches are harmless .sql files yes I have opened and used with most OS, if you watch closely you can see how many of those .sql files are used based on OS and other factors. Now I have signed paper I will not open but you can still watch and count how many was used by your server it is not complicated.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
Frustrated? Me. Well, yesterday, for sure. Six hours to ferret out problems and patch a standalone development machine seemed a bit much even for my patience.
I agree that SQL Server is a superior product (so is Vista), and things always do go wrong occasionally, but my point stands. By twinning the feature releases with fixes, they create a larger opportunity for things to go awry, and their patch process, while good, has come off more than a little unpolished many times the past few years.
As for the patches all being SQL files, that's just not the case. A significant number of binaries get changed with each release under the new installer mechanism. This means that we end up with a large binary variance, and in any product of scale that means possible regression issues, etc. To their credit this has hardly ever been the case with recent patches, but the potential is real. Smaller SPs with more regularity would be a benefit.
And, just in case they are reading your posts, Steve, keep making good suggestions. 😉
-
They are .sql files in an installer they also includes all previous service packs of the product, the changes are based on hardware, network, OS and other factors. I run into minor problems with Win2k service pack four but the OS is old I expected the probelms.
Kind regards,
Gift Peddie -
If MS continues to 'stay the course' of introducing new features in SP's I may have to start reccommending to wait until SP3 or SP4 has been out for a while. Sounds a bit retro does it not ? Kinda like the old v6.0 days ...
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
To date, we haven't upgraded from SQL Server version 2000 to 2005. As is the case with many others, we're still waiting for some time to pass, some service packs to be released and a consensus that the product is at least as stable and as easy to use as the product we'd be replacing.
Well, some time has passed and two service packs have been released. Is there a consensus yet on this product? Or, should we wait a bit longer?
-
The maintenance plan stuff that was introduced in SP2 should have been there from the get go. This was in SQL 2000 and I cannot figure out why they removed it to begin with. I too am wondering if from this point forward not consider a new release of SQL Server until SP2. I saw alot of bugs in RTM and SP1 and a couple still yet in the hotfix after SP1. Darn, now do these bugs get this far into a new product.... ??? I cannot remember how many hours I spent working on some bizarre issues and come to find out it is a bug and then some get fixed in SP1 and a couple other things break... yikes.
-
I think a certain percentage of us experience huge problems and it's incredibly frustrated. I didn't have the issues Frank did, but that's not an excuse. If he wasted a day patching a service pack, Microsoft did something wrong and should be working with him (or vice versa) to figure out the issues.
When Slammer hit, I spent about 18 hours, including overnight into the next morning, trying to patch MSDE with their fix. It wouldn't work because our named instances of MSDE didn't follow the expected install path.
As far as stability, I think 2005 is an extremely stable product, very few issues and no security ones. If you look through the Service Pack, there are relatively few fixes in it compared with previous packs and other versions. Not sure if there are benefits worth upgrading for any particular environment, but it seems to be very stable.
-
I have let MS know about the suggestion that a dependency check would be handy prior to SP application. It seemed that it was an unnecessary bit of grief. If MS DTC was necessary, why not just query it to see if it is there? I basically had to watch the entire SP fail before I could tackle the issue at all, which meant sifting through logs to determine the dependency failure.
I can lend my vote that SQL Server 2005 is one of the best releases from MS yet, and while new features aren't unwelcome, it would just be nice to see them separate them from the SP process. Maybe an annual extended features update?
-
I'm fine with them releasing new features every month. Just make them a separate download, or maybe a "feature pack" that rolls up features.
Or hey, here's an idea, maybe release a "point release" every year. Remember those? We used to get v3.5 of a product, not just v3 and v4.
If they are really going to release every 2 years, then just hold the features until then. Just give us a service pack at least every six months and we'll be fine.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 18 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply