February 21, 2012 at 10:49 am
My environment right now composes of a 2005 and a 2008 instance. If we haven't had a need for SQL Server 2008 R2 yet, should I make a plan to install it? Or should I skip SQL Server 2008 R2 and wait for SQL Server 2012? I doubt the 2005 instance is going away anytime soon, since we have some applications that require it. It just seems like 4 different versions is a lot to handle for a SQL environment that has approximately 100 databases in it. Thoughts? Considerations?
February 21, 2012 at 10:51 am
It is not necessary to go to 2008R2 if you find no pressing reason to upgrade. There are upgrade paths from 2005 and 2008 to 2012, so if you decided to wait and upgrade later, you should be fine.
February 21, 2012 at 10:58 am
calvo (2/21/2012)
It is not necessary to go to 2008R2 if you find no pressing reason to upgrade. There are upgrade paths from 2005 and 2008 to 2012, so if you decided to wait and upgrade later, you should be fine.
My concern is having an application require SQL Server 2008 R2 and not having anywhere to put the database. I haven't run across anything with that requirement yet, but who knows how these vendors write their applications.
February 21, 2012 at 11:23 am
yep, a valid concern. I would cross that bridge when I come to it. No sense in paying money for licensing an instance you won't use or potentially breaking legacy applications by upgrading an old instance to accommodate a new application.
February 21, 2012 at 11:29 am
calvo (2/21/2012)
yep, a valid concern. I would cross that bridge when I come to it. No sense in paying money for licensing an instance you won't use or potentially breaking legacy applications by upgrading an old instance to accommodate a new application.
Agreed. We're refreshing our hardware, though, so I need to determine if I need to plan for a SQL 2008 R2 instance or not. I have to make sure I have resources to allocate to it, if I need it. But at this point it seems like a waste to buy resources, that I don't and, possibly, won't ever need.
February 21, 2012 at 12:01 pm
I guess I have not run into a case where an application "needs" 2005 versus 2008. If it can run on 2005, it does not take much to have it run on 2008, 2008 r2, and presumably 2012. Of course, it may take some modifications that are not willing to be done. However, if you don't already have an application on 2008 R2, why would you build one specifically for it?
Jared
CE - Microsoft
February 21, 2012 at 12:08 pm
SQLKnowItAll (2/21/2012)
I guess I have not run into a case where an application "needs" 2005 versus 2008. If it can run on 2005, it does not take much to have it run on 2008, 2008 r2, and presumably 2012. Of course, it may take some modifications that are not willing to be done. However, if you don't already have an application on 2008 R2, why would you build one specifically for it?
Maybe an application doesn't "need" to run on 2005, but it might only be supported by the vendor if it does. I've run into that scenario a few times.
I would build out a 2008 R2 instance for future, new applications that are added to our environment. But at this point, I'm considering skipping R2, and just putting new applications on 2012. The problem with that, is that most of our applications are third party, so 2012 might not be certified or supported as soon as 2012 is "officially" released. I would think though that most applications would be compatible at least back to SQL 2008 for a few more years. Thoughts?
February 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm
DBAgal (2/21/2012)
SQLKnowItAll (2/21/2012)
I guess I have not run into a case where an application "needs" 2005 versus 2008. If it can run on 2005, it does not take much to have it run on 2008, 2008 r2, and presumably 2012. Of course, it may take some modifications that are not willing to be done. However, if you don't already have an application on 2008 R2, why would you build one specifically for it?Maybe an application doesn't "need" to run on 2005, but it might only be supported by the vendor if it does. I've run into that scenario a few times.
I would build out a 2008 R2 instance for future, new applications that are added to our environment. But at this point, I'm considering skipping R2, and just putting new applications on 2012. The problem with that, is that most of our applications are third party, so 2012 might not be certified or supported as soon as 2012 is "officially" released. I would think though that most applications would be compatible at least back to SQL 2008 for a few more years. Thoughts?
I would assume that almost anything will be compatible to 2008 and 2005 for several more years. Remember, you can still set compatibility levels on databases. Most applications (even third party) should not care which version of SQL Server it is as long as it can read the data. Sure, a good developer will check the version or at least compatibility of the database. However, "many" small to medium sized shops are still running 2005, so I don't think it will be an issue. Hell, many are still running 2000!
Jared
CE - Microsoft
March 12, 2012 at 8:36 pm
SQL Server 2008 and SQL Server 2008 R2 both offer the same maximum compatibility level, 100, so T-SQL that runs on SQL 2008 will have no issue running on SQL 2008R2. Most of the enhancements in 2008R2 were for SQL Server subsystems. I would not be very concerned about third-party apps requiring 2008R2 and leaving you unsupported if using 2008. If you want to read more about the differences here are a couple items for you:
New and Updated Content in SQL Server 2008 R2 Books Online
What's New (SQL Server 2008 R2)
In light of the recent release of SQL Server 2012 I would upgrade to it if you still have the option.
There are no special teachers of virtue, because virtue is taught by the whole community.
--Plato
March 12, 2012 at 9:27 pm
My concern is having an application require SQL Server 2008 R2 and not having anywhere to put the database. I haven't run across anything with that requirement yet, but who knows how these vendors write their applications.
My thought, have your management consult with your vendors to learn each vendors plans / timeline for upgrading their applications.
Attempting to make a decision without that information is as useful as rolling a pair of dice to see if it comes up with a winning 7.
March 13, 2012 at 4:06 am
Upgrading from SQL 2005 to SQL 2008 R2 is fairly painless but you must test all your applications with SQL 2008 R2 before upgrading your production system.
Ther are always changes to the SQL Optimiser between different versions of SQL Server, and you migh be unlucky enough to have a business-critical statement that performs worse on SQL 2008 R2 than on SQL 2005. Most things should perform better.
If you use Windows 2008 R2 and SQL 2008 R2 on modern hardware (anything that has the SLAT feature - use Google if you need more info about SLAT) then it will run faster than using any previous combination of OS and SQL Server on the same hardware. This is because the R2 versions can exploit SLAT and the older versions cannot.
We have not found any problems in upgrading SQL 2008 R2 to SQL 2012, but your results may be different. However, if you have SQL 2005 as a replication publisher you cannot have SQL 2012 as a subscriber, and probably also the other way round but we did not test this.
Original author: https://github.com/SQL-FineBuild/Common/wiki/ 1-click install and best practice configuration of SQL Server 2019, 2017 2016, 2014, 2012, 2008 R2, 2008 and 2005.
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
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply