October 4, 2005 at 6:45 am
We are getting ready to get a new server (lease is up on the old one) and we currently have a license for 2000 and this software meets our needs so I am currently planning on using the existing license on the new server. However, I am thinking that since we are going to get new hardware we may as well get new software but I am not sure of how I can justify to my boss the additional cost. Could someone provide me some real world experience? The server will typically be used for internal corporate web applications with 50-200 users.
thanks
October 4, 2005 at 6:50 am
I think it all depend on your business needs. check this
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/2005/default.mspx and identify what are the suitable features that will suit your business
My Blog:
October 4, 2005 at 7:23 am
Thanks I am still reviewing all of the info from MS, but I guess what I am really after is some examples of things that we be able to easier (i.e., cheaper and more reliably). Maybe even some tips about things that were/are a pain to do in 2000 that will be pain free in 2005.
October 4, 2005 at 7:39 am
What do you do your development in? If you are a big investor in .NET then the integration of the CLR should be a big selling point.
Although I am evaluating SQL2005 I don't plan to buy it until SP1 is released. It will probably take that long to bring myself up-to-date on all the features and facilities that it offers.
I found the upgrade from 6.5 to 7.0 was a no brainer. A quantum leap in performance and maintainability.
SQL 7 to 2000 was harder but was eventually driven by external factors. Developing for clients.
SQL 2005 is likely to be driven by
.NET integration
Reporting Services
XML
Brokering services (asynchronous operations).
A need for something sexy on my CV
October 4, 2005 at 2:35 pm
I would agree with the last person but would add SSIS (Integration Services). Much better if you do anything with files in DTS now. Heck, it's better if you do much of anthing at all with DTS. Service Broker could be very nice depending on what you are doing. 2005 is suppose to be faster than 2000 from what I've heard but have no first hand testing so I'd recommend reviewing some benchmarks, or do your own if you have time, to see if you can save some money on hardware.
October 5, 2005 at 1:42 am
If you look downt the FIX list for SQL2000 SP4 + the AWE cockup hot fix you will see that a number of fixes are for improving slow running queries.
I wouldn't hang your hat on better performance at this stage until the actual live product is out there.
As for saving money on hardware, in 20 years I have NEVER seen this happen. Servers are always expensive so the prevailing attitude that I have seen is "as soon as to be hung for a sheep as for a lamb".
Financially desktop PCs may be on a 2 year depreciation cycle but servers tend to be at least twice that so investment tends to be on the heavy side.
October 5, 2005 at 2:02 am
If you look downt the FIX list for SQL2000 SP4 + the AWE cockup hot fix you will see that a number of fixes are for improving slow running queries.
I wouldn't hang your hat on better performance at this stage until the actual live product is out there.
Of course, until RTM is out there are no sure measures of performance. But I can assure you there are several changes to the low-level side of things that will give you out-of-the-box better performance if you upgrade a system, or even better build it for SQL Server 2005 directly. This is especially true for high-end systems.
To mention one feature, there is the ability for workers to move between schedulers. In SQL Server 2000, if the worker that is doing your work is on a scheduler that is very heavily used, then you are stuck there even though other schedulers are idle. This is no longer the case in SQL Server 2005. These kind of changes is not possible to 'fix' for SQL Server 2000 with service packs.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply