February 8, 2010 at 8:46 am
Steve Jones - Editor (2/8/2010)
Actually I think this is the way to do. So many people have complained about features in SPs, myself included. I prefer SPs to be just fixes.Adding those new features, should come at some price. If you don't use them, why upgrade?
We are an almost exclusively standard edition shop so we are facing a 25% price hike, so the new features come at quite a price.
Given the choice I wouldn't upgrade to R2 at this point, but as I am led to believe, once R2 comes out you will only be able to buy R2 licenses so will have to pay the R2 price.
Its also getting too confusing with releases, service packs, CUs and GDR and QFE paths. Do you know if 2008 SP1 is the end of the line and if everything will now build from 20008 R2? Will I be able to apply 2008 R2 SP1 to 2008 SP1?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
February 8, 2010 at 8:49 am
george sibbald (2/8/2010)
Will I be able to apply 2008 R2 SP1 to 2008 SP1?
I would highly doubt it, no more than you can apply SQL 2008 SP1 to SQL 2005 SP1. They're different versions, different products.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
February 8, 2010 at 8:50 am
That is a good point, and I do believe that shortly you won't be able to buy SS2K8 from MS. I bet resellers will still have it for awhile, but not a long time.
R2 is a separate product. It's not quite a full release, which I think speaks to the limited feature changes, so the patches put out for R2, are R2 only.
CUs are interim patches. SPs should be rollups of CUs with other important patches in there. The GDR v QFE is, I believe, a differentiation how the patches are released.
SS2K8 has SP1 and (hopefully) SP2 coming. Those will be separate from R2 RTM, and R2 SP1.
February 8, 2010 at 9:09 am
thanks for the clarification.
to my mind MS should have gone the whole hog and called 2008 R2 SQL 2010, would have been more consistent with past practices.
I understand the various patching nuances, I just think its got too complicated. You see so many posts about should CUs be applied and patches failing because a QFE\GDR patch is already applied (especially those people relying on MS update).
I'm going to get my license order in quick and stick to 2008 SP1. That way my budget forecast my boss is relying on won't be 25% + VAT out.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
February 8, 2010 at 9:30 am
george sibbald (2/8/2010)
to my mind MS should have gone the whole hog and called 2008 R2 SQL 2010, would have been more consistent with past practices.
Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2003 R2
Windows Server 2008, Windows Server 2008 R2
The SQL team's adopting the same model and the windows server team. To be honest, I don't think this could be called a full release. It doesn't have enough changes to be a full release. For anyone doing just data engine stuff, there's little value in R2. It's mostly the BI people who are benefiting.
Gail Shaw
Microsoft Certified Master: SQL Server, MVP, M.Sc (Comp Sci)
SQL In The Wild: Discussions on DB performance with occasional diversions into recoverability
Viewing 5 posts - 16 through 19 (of 19 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply