October 21, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Hi
Nice article. From a developer point of view I like the new data types (FILESTREAM, DATE etc), sparse columns and Change Data Tracking feature which are available in standard edition, but from a DBA point of view I am not happy that TDE and Backup Compression are both Enterprise edition only feature. Both would have been good for branch offices or appliances which we would have used standard edition for. So for the time being we are going to be upgrading.
Regards
Richard...
http://www.linkedin.com/in/gbd77rc
October 21, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I would love to work for Microsoft's SQL Server development team. I've worked with the product since 6.0. Working for an Application Server Provider that serves over 3000 companies from mom & pops to big corporations hosting a multitude of sql servers, I view Policy based Management in SQL 2008 as one big step in the right direction amongst others noted in this discussion. Many of 2005 features are a great improvement over 2000 and some that seemed like compromises but the good definitely out weighs the bad by a good margin.
October 21, 2008 at 7:09 pm
We will be moving to 2008 - a reversal from a few months ago when it looked like we might skip this release. The reasons are the improvements to Reporting Services and the items in the paragraph that starts "So I looking at programmer/development improvements ...".
An earlier post noted how Microsoft partially destroyed DTS in the move to SSIS. That was a very bad decision on their part but I don't see that happening in other areas.
October 22, 2008 at 1:39 am
The SQL 2005+ feature set is akin to buying a combine harvester to clean bathmats. I miss the ability to do 90% of my job - right click and import data. Who thought they were doing the user community a favour by removing a compelling feature? If the core SQL implementation had been as slow and cumbersome as SSIS is today it would be classified as an unmitigated disaster. MS needs to focus on making sure the .Net bloatware add-ons are sharpened up to run as snappily, easily and intuitively as the base TSQL product. A "rich" user experience line is irrelevant if what I require is a product with a fast set of wheels. Less is more. Less mish-mash. More oomph. Please.
October 22, 2008 at 12:24 pm
One other correction, the article states:
"...differences between a say 32 bit 2 GB RAM SQL2000 Standard on NT4 Server and a 64 bit 32 GB RAM SQL2005 Standard on W2K3 Standard system is very large indeed, despite both the OS and SQL Server version being the Standard edition (a likely OS/SQL combination)..."
On the OS side Windows 2003 Standard Edition only supports up to 4 GB of memory. Your scenario of an X64 32 GB server would require Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition.
October 22, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I just talked to my manager about upgrading to 2008 from 2005 and his answer is "why rush on things, that to on a product from MS. Let's wait until MS release sp2 and then think of upgrading. Until then we are good with 2005."
SQL DBA.
October 22, 2008 at 12:54 pm
since there isnt going to be a sql2005 sp3
sql2008 is actually that, so we arent upgrading to sql2008 from sql2005
but it there is a new server purchase it will probably be sql2008
October 22, 2008 at 1:06 pm
robert.goudie (10/22/2008)
I miss the ability to do 90% of my job - right click and import data.
I am not sure why you find the Import and export wizard to not fulfill the right-click import requirement.
Display the solution explorer toolbar, right-click over the SSIS packages node and start the wizard.
It is doing a decent job, you however need a second click to run the packages after the wizard built-it.
Anyway, I would use this only for a one time import-export, for packages that need to be ran regularly I use an SSIS package template. I am much more productive this way.
BI Guy
October 22, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Agreed to several comments on SQL Server 2008. We are on Windows 2008 and SQL Server 2005.
I read articles about SQL Server 2008, did not seem appealing.
For a developer, who is constantly developing something either in SQL or writing C# or .NET or WCF Web Services talking to databases, SQL Server 2008 might be a good idea, for that SQL Server 2005 will justify as well.
It is nothing but SQL Server society at Microsoft screws up with releases and releases a release for a release. At the end of the day, as a user of SQL Server, you and your boss has to decide how much money you have in your pocket to buy.
Mahidhar Vattem
October 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm
cmille19 (10/22/2008)
One other correction, the article states:"...differences between a say 32 bit 2 GB RAM SQL2000 Standard on NT4 Server and a 64 bit 32 GB RAM SQL2005 Standard on W2K3 Standard system is very large indeed, despite both the OS and SQL Server version being the Standard edition (a likely OS/SQL combination)..."
On the OS side Windows 2003 Standard Edition only supports up to 4 GB of memory. Your scenario of an X64 32 GB server would require Windows 2003 Enterprise Edition.
Incorrect for 2003R2 x64. Look at this updated information.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/x64/standard.mspx
The most useful extract is...
Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition supports up to 32 GB of RAM on 1- to 4-way servers. Supported processors include:
x64 server 2003 does support 32 gb of ram. I know as I am running them with more than 4gb, but sadly not 32gb! Windows server 2008 standard also supports 32gb RAM, I am sitting near one now that is being configured for production, and SQL server is using 26GB out of the 32GB.
Regards
Nigel
October 22, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for the updated info, I wasn't aware R2 changed the max memory. Do you know if clustering is supported in Windows 2003 R2 Standard? It wasn't in Windows 2003 Standard. Due to the old 4 GB limit requirement and clustering I've always went with Windows 2003 Enterprise, but now I may re-think that decision.
October 23, 2008 at 12:48 am
cmille19 (10/22/2008)
Thanks for the updated info, I wasn't aware R2 changed the max memory. Do you know if clustering is supported in Windows 2003 R2 Standard? It wasn't in Windows 2003 Standard. Due to the old 4 GB limit requirement and clustering I've always went with Windows 2003 Enterprise, but now I may re-think that decision.
I'm sorry but I don't know, the documentation is certainly not clear cut.
Nigel
October 23, 2008 at 1:13 am
danschl (10/22/2008)
since there isnt going to be a sql2005 sp3sql2008 is actually that, so we arent upgrading to sql2008 from sql2005
but it there is a new server purchase it will probably be sql2008
SQL Server 2005 SP3 will be here before the end of the year.
October 23, 2008 at 4:30 am
If you're only using Std Edition, yeah, I can understand 2008 doesn't offer much above 2005 - SSMS is nice, but a lot of the enterprise stuff is HUGE.
The star join optimisation (you're unlikely to be using this on std edition, although you could....) is a big thing, the row level compression for optimising ETLs, the additions to SSRS - and, my personal favorite, C# Script Components in SSIS.
Also Read-Only AS DBs, allowing for scale out on AS - that's a nice feature
October 23, 2008 at 9:39 am
I think the article should have had more technical content or been labeled an editorial. I didn't learn much from it.
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 89 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply