March 4, 2009 at 3:56 pm
Greg Charles (3/4/2009)
We, too, are trying to wrap up the migration from SQL 2000 to SQL 2005. It's taken us a lot longer than previous migrations because of the big jump in functionality in the engine and SSIS.
JJ B (3/4/2009)
We upgraded from 2000 to 2005 some time ago. The biggest problem with that upgrade was re-writing all the DTS packages into SSIS, and that truly was a nightmare. But that is done. All my databases are fully 2005.
Do you guys think the re-writes into SSIS were worthwhile?
We've been okay running DTS under 2005, and yes I'd like new features, but SSIS certainly has not been a must-have for us.
March 4, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Do you guys think the re-writes into SSIS were worthwhile?
I continue to hate working in SSIS (my opinions of SSIS have nothing to do with the learning curve of which I already got over). I remain convinced that SSIS was not thought out enough/not ready for release.
However, to be fair, I can also say one good thing about it. There were a couple tasks I was able to do much more easily in SSIS than I could have done in DTS. Because those tasks were easier to do in SSIS, I implemented them for the first time in SSIS. In that sense, I got more functionality by converting to SSIS. You said that you are happy with the DTS functionality, but having a bit more to play with may end up being a lot nicer than you think.
Here's another point to consider besides functionality: I think if you plan on staying with SQL Server, then it is worth it to convert to SSIS simply because MS is not going to go back to DTS. In that sense, it was worth biting the bullet and just doing it.
This may put it in perspective: the time it took me to re-write 4 modest jobs was ridiculous and the process was painful and it remains painful to work with the existing packages. If MS had instead announced (I'm not saying they should) that they would offer both DTS and SSIS forever and we could pick whichever tool we wanted, I would definitely have stuck with DTS knowing what I know now. But, MS is not saying that and I know I will continue working with SQL Server into the future. Perhaps they will make SSIS better as time goes on.
March 4, 2009 at 5:12 pm
JJ B (3/4/2009)Perhaps they will make SSIS better as time goes on.
I pray they do, lol. Some of the little conveniences in 2000, like Enterprise Manager automatically shifting the case on table/column references, and bigger conveniences like graphic development in DTS... made 2005 seem like a step backward.
Yeah, I've used and enjoyed new features, but I'm surprised Microsoft would let anything be a step backward, in an upgrade.
Another thing that makes me less excited to go "forward".
March 4, 2009 at 5:58 pm
I prefer adoption after the first service pack, but that relies on many others being the virtual guinea pigs.
I generally have enjoyed the progress of the MS group of software. I have used many others, and MS still is simply the best for the buck.
As for continuing education, do a little every day, just like exercize. I think regularity pays more dividends than the cram course.
March 5, 2009 at 9:12 am
Late adoptor.
At least SP2.
We are still on SQL 2005 and have no plans for moving to 2008. We may even skip it and go directly to SQL Server 2011. (It goes to 11? Why not just go to 10 and make it more powerful? 😉
I'd like to adopt, but we have an ERP system that slows us down and a tough time getting the business to buy off on upgrading, testing time and company resources for testing the ERP system.
Alan
March 5, 2009 at 10:39 am
Thanks for the responses and I wish I'd had a few of these on Tue in the MVP sessions. There were questions about what compelling things would get people to move to SQL 11.
App vendors are a big reason for slow adoption. And I understand that.
Seems like many people are moving to 2005, which is interesting. IMHO, if you are still doing that, moving from 7 or 2000 to 2005, you ought to consider 2008 for the remainder of your projects. It is more like a v2005 R2 IMHO. The hard part of moving from 2000-> 2005 because of language changes. Not many, or very few, between 2005-2008. More that 2008 added things, but you can ignore them.
March 5, 2009 at 11:23 am
Steve Jones - Editor (3/5/2009)
Thanks for the responses and I wish I'd had a few of these on Tue in the MVP sessions. There were questions about what compelling things would get people to move to SQL 11.App vendors are a big reason for slow adoption. And I understand that.
Seems like many people are moving to 2005, which is interesting. IMHO, if you are still doing that, moving from 7 or 2000 to 2005, you ought to consider 2008 for the remainder of your projects. It is more like a v2005 R2 IMHO. The hard part of moving from 2000-> 2005 because of language changes. Not many, or very few, between 2005-2008. More that 2008 added things, but you can ignore them.
Sounds great, and thanks for the suggestion -- your "IMHO" being such a well-informed "HO" 🙂
Here's the big question, for us: backwards compatibility. Will the 2000 stuff we're doing work with 2008?
For reasons I've already shared, we're running DTS (from 2000) under Mgmt Studio (from 2005). This includes DTS design/development tools, provided by Microsoft to run under Mgmt Studio in 2005. Will those still work under 2008?
March 5, 2009 at 11:41 am
DTS has a runtime. It should work and there's still a compatibility mode. If it works on 2005, should still work on 2008.
As far as rewriting DTS packages. If you are doing development on them, I'd move them to SSIS. If they're stable and just run, I'd leave them be.
Note that DTS likely will not be supported in SQL 11.
March 6, 2009 at 3:30 am
We still use 2000 here. We'll probably migrate to 2008 later this year - although rumours of a 2010 release for the next version make me wonder whether we should hang fire. However, I'm concerned there may not be a straightforward migration path from 2000 to 2010.
Does anyone know if that's likely to be the case?
Cheers
John
March 6, 2009 at 9:09 am
2010 is supposed to be first half (1H) of 2010 and it's a Data Warehouse, point release. Not a full upgrade, at least not now.
The first PASS Summit in 1999 showcased SQL Server 7.5, which became SQL 2000 a year later. I'm not sold they'll release an upgrade in 2010, or that it won't be the last half of 2010 and be a full upgrade.
MS resists supporting 2 versions back, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up building an upgrade in there. If you can make 2000->2008, I would think that the upgrade wouldn't be any harder to 2010, with the possible issue of DTS not being supported.
March 6, 2009 at 9:47 am
Steve Jones - Editor (3/6/2009)
2010 is supposed to be first half (1H) of 2010...
Did you mean "2010 is supposed to be first half (1H) of 2011..." ?
March 6, 2009 at 10:05 am
No, the release on 2010 is slated for 2010 1H, or first half (Q1 or Q2).
2011 is the guess for SQL 11 (SQL server 2008 is SQL v10)
Viewing 12 posts - 31 through 41 (of 41 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply